All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
37:21
COL. Douglas Macgregor : Is US Ground Involvement in Ukraine War Coming?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, July 30th, 2025.
My dear friend Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now.
Colonel McGregor, always a pleasure, and thank you very much for your time.
Before we get to the comments by General Donahue about the effectiveness, in his opinion, of American ground troops in Russia, I want to ask you about a number of other things that have happened more recently than General Donahue's comments.
On Monday, President Trump issued a threat to President Putin saying if the special military operation isn't over in 10 to 12 days, I don't know the significance of that number, but this is what the president said, we will impose secondary sanctions on the countries that buy oil from you.
How does this advance the ball, if at all, of relations between the United States and Russia?
Well, it doesn't, obviously.
And it seems that we have abandoned any notion of trying to improve our relations with the Russians.
There was an article that was penned by this former Russian general, Dmitry Tranin, then published ultimately on the website at RT.
And he does a good job of addressing this, essentially repeating something that Putin has largely said.
It doesn't make any difference what we do.
It doesn't make any difference what we say.
We are going to continue to be the target of abuse for the West in perpetuity.
And so we might as well get accustomed to it.
Don't look for any change in sanctions or economic policy and prepare to fight the long war, if you will.
So I think that's really what this is all about.
And again, go back to candidate Trump and the kinds of things he said when he was running for office.
And they're 180 degrees out from the things that he's now doing.
I think he's been handed a script by his handlers, the people that represent his donors, and told, this is what you're going to do.
And I think he likes threatening other countries, other people.
It's his nature.
He thinks bullying works.
The response of the Chinese was very telling.
And you and I emailed about this.
It was basically, forget about it.
Don't try and intimidate us.
You want to raise the prices of goods that Americans pay?
Go right ahead and do it.
It's like the Chinese politicians have a better understanding of economics 101 than the president does.
Who pays these sales taxes?
Well, the Americans that purchase the foreign goods do.
That's right.
Yeah, it's entirely on us.
And I think that will eventually hit home with Americans.
They'll begin to question why they have to pay so much more for things.
On top of that, you have inflation.
And even though the government continues to insist that inflation is under control, it's not.
So President Trump has walked himself into a corner.
And essentially, the Chinese have said, if you want to play tariff roulette, be our guest and handed us a pistol and said, go ahead and point it at your head.
Because that's effectively what he's done.
Things are not going to get better.
They're going to get worse from here.
Moving to Israel and Gaza, General, do you, Colonel, forgive me, Colonel, do you sense a consensus building in the West of a recognition of starvation, slaughter, and genocide?
I think there are lots of people that know the truth.
I don't know how clearly that's understood inside the United States.
Again, the problem with the American people, it's not really a problem, it's simply a statement of fact, is that most of us live remote from the rest of the world.
And these things are, in the views of most Americans, what happens in Gaza is not our problem.
It's Israel's problem.
What Americans don't understand is the extent to which we are ultimately controlled and commanded by Israel.
That's what Americans are only now beginning to figure out.
As they figure that out, then I think the horror in Gaza will begin to hit home and they'll understand that we're facilitating it.
We're enabling it.
And President Trump, I think, also recently mentioned, yes, what's happening in Gaza is terrible and it is starvation, but there doesn't seem to be any willingness on his part to do anything about it.
And he acts as though it's beyond his ability to influence.
Well, it may be given the donors that control him.
That's possible.
And remember, the donors come from many categories, financial elites, ideologues, neocons.
They're all sorts of different people that have mega donors.
The problem, though, is he does have enormous power if he chooses to exercise it.
It may not make his donors happy, but if he decided to get on a plane, Judge, and fly instantly to Israel and the land and demand to be taken to Gaza, he may be obstructed initially by the Israelis, but I think ultimately we have enough military power in the region that he could be accompanied by U.S. security details and he could go see for himself the mindless murder, the deprivation.
And this argument is, well, this is all Hamas's fault.
You know, that's why.
And if they just dispose of Hamas, well, then everything will be fine.
Well, it's not going to work that way.
We know that's not The case.
The purpose is very straightforward.
They want to exterminate these people or drive them out, one of the two.
And they don't care which, and they're completely unconcerned about how many people die.
They actually think that's a good thing.
And this is the Israeli perspective.
President Trump is supporting it.
The president was seated next to Prime Minister Starmers.
This is the same time he issued the threat to President Putin about which you spoke a few minutes ago, sort of wringing his hands at the starvation, at the so-called aid the United States has delivered, which is really part of this Mossad CIA ruse, this humanitarian organization that's providing merely a pittance.
And why haven't they thanked us for it?
Well, you, of course, put your finger on it.
It's not a question of them thanking us for it.
It's why have you caused it and why do you continue to cause it?
Oh, but Colonel, before you respond, here's someone who says there is no starvation in Gaza.
Chris 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.
Well, the Soviets orchestrated numerous famines.
The most famous and the largest, of course, is referred to as the Holodomur.
And that's when an estimated 7 to 9 million Ukrainians that were so-called kulaks, they were people that had made the mistake of owning, say, a cow and perhaps a few acres of land on which to grow food, were then systematically starved, deported, shot, murdered, raped.
You go down the list.
He sounds a lot like Stalin and Yogoda.
Stalin at the time insisted to everyone in the West through his spokespersons, there was no starvation anywhere in the Soviet Union.
Only Stalin went a little further than our friend Netanyahu.
Stalin had trucks, black trucks, large ones, that belonged to the KGB.
And he and Beria decided to paint the word meat on the side of the trucks.
And these trucks would be all over Moscow, of course, picking up people, usually at night, but picking them up, and then they would disappear.
They would end up in the gulag or simply be executed in the Lubyanka prison.
And the journalists saw all of these trucks with meat stenciled on the side and said, look, what a brilliant job Commissar Stalin is doing.
He's ensuring that Moscow and all of his citizens are supplied with all the meat that they need.
That was reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Listen, this is not new.
This is an old ruse.
The NKVD was very good at this.
I think Mr. Netanyahu is trying to do the same thing.
He doesn't have trucks with meat painted on them, but he does have control of the Western media and he has control of our government.
And the outcome is that he can stand up there and tell boldface lies all day long until nightfall, and he's probably never going to be challenged.
And he has this monster, Haben Gavir, in his coalition.
This is just two days ago, Chris number 18.
A moral bankruptcy.
That while our hostages are in Gaza, our prime minister is transferring humanitarian aid to Gaza.
I think that at this stage, the only thing that should have been sent to Gaza is one thing, bombs.
Bomb, counter, encourage immigration, and win the war.
Here's a character who says it is morally bankrupt to provide people with food.
Well, if you're dealing with it.
If this guy and his colleagues leave, then Netanyahu doesn't have a majority.
We understand how that system works.
So this is the influence on the prime minister's decisions as reprehensible as these people are.
Well, maybe, but I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the idea that Mr. Netanyahu does not completely agree with him.
And I still think a large portion of the Israeli population is quite content to see these people exterminated.
It's very sad, but that's the way it is.
And, you know, the Soviet model is in full effect here.
And I think it would be nice if someone in the American political arena manifested some degree of moral courage.
I mean, once you move beyond Thomas Massey, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rohana and a few others, you don't find too many people.
They don't seem to care.
This is going to come back to haunt us, Judge.
We're involved in this up to our necks.
And this is a terrible stain on the honor of the American people and the United States.
Colonel, getting back to Trump's threat, if you will, to President Putin, where do you think the stories are emanating from that the press is picking up, which I've seen a number of times in the past week, claiming that the Russians have lost a million troops in Ukraine?
Is this CIA nonsense being puddled by the Washington Post again?
Absolutely.
CIA, MI6, Mossad are all in the same organizational construct.
They reinforce each other.
They work with each other.
And these narratives are spun up in London and in Langley.
And then they're disseminated to the press.
And, you know, you have others that are more expert on this than I am, whether it's Phil Giraldi or John Mearseim or any other numbers of people that are familiar with the intelligence sources for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post.
And these papers just mindlessly reprint this nonsense.
It has no basis, in fact.
It's complete fantasy.
Yeah, I think the sad truth of the matter is as follows.
For the Russians, I think they finally figured out whatever we say, they can't believe.
It's just a lie.
And they've given up on us.
So they'll be Polite to us and they'll smile, but they'll continue doing their work.
And I think they figured out they're going to have to move west.
They're going to have to cross the river.
They'll have to go into Kiev and go into Odessa and be prepared for whatever happens after that, at least until the governments in Western Europe change hands.
That will be a strategic sea change, and then the truth will come out.
It'll look like de-Stalinization or denazification when that comes.
Were you surprised when Ursula van der Leyen supinely agreed to a 15% tariff on all European goods or all EU goods going into the United States, a decision that has been met with widespread condemnation and disapproval in Europe?
Supine is an interesting adjective, Judge.
I would have said serpentine, maybe.
Look, I think she and her globalist friends that are still in power in Europe are desperate to keep us in the war in Ukraine.
They've concluded that if this war in Ukraine ends anytime soon, they're out of office.
Because as soon as it becomes clear that the Russians have won decisively, as soon as it becomes obvious that we in the United States, our government is no longer interested in funding it or can't, the game is up for them.
They have bet everything on the war in Ukraine to ensure their authority is unchecked.
And that's what they've got right now.
And so I think they were willing to say and do almost anything for Trump, provided he keeps sending weapons, keeps sending money, and keeps troops on the ground along the border in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.
So I think that's what it's all about.
I don't think it's going to work.
I think it's all going to fall apart.
It'll probably fall apart sooner rather than later.
But again, it's all based on this false assumption.
And all you have to, I live 65 miles west of DC, but all I have to do is go into Washington, go to any of the so-called think tanks, which of course are oxymorons.
They're all dominated by the same people that are all also pushing war in the Middle East or war with China and war everywhere.
And they say the same thing.
Oh, Russia is weak.
We just do this a little longer, just a few more months.
Russia will fall.
They're weak.
And oh, Putin, he's just a dictator.
People are ready to overthrow him.
He's weak.
Wrong.
It's all nonsense.
And of course, it's all predicated on the great myth that we're this perfect liberal democracy.
Even though most Americans are concluding with each passing day, the ballot box is broken.
And it doesn't make any difference whom you vote for.
You end up with the same policies.
And if you look at Trump and what he said before he was elected, what he's done since he got there, two things worlds apart.
Yes.
He knows it.
Well, which is the greater threat to European economic stability?
The United States or Russia?
Well, it certainly isn't Russia.
We're the ones that have demanded through their elites that they deindustrialize themselves, that Germany, for instance, commit national suicide, and it's well on its way.
The problem, though, is that there's a real war brewing in Europe, a major war.
But it's not with Russia.
It's with the millions and millions of non-Europeans that were herded into those countries since 2015.
That's what everybody's afraid of.
They should be afraid of it because it's a catastrophe for Europe.
And it's obvious in Italy.
It's obvious in Germany or Austria or France or anywhere you go, and especially now in England.
That's the truth.
Nobody in these countries is interested in going to war with Russia.
And the fear factor is diminishing as more and more people figure out Russia presents no threat to Europe at all.
Excuse me for jumping back and forth from topics, but I want to show you this latest approval rating.
This is a poll taken by CBS News of Americans aged 18 to 29 concerning President Trump's approval rating.
In early February, 55% approved, 45% disapproved.
Now, after the recognition of the slaughter in Gaza, 28% approve.
That's down 44%.
And 72% disapprove.
That's up 54%.
Even Bernie Sanders, a year and a half late, has condemned the slaughter in Gaza, which he originally voted to finance.
Well, you're seeing the difference between the boomer generation of which I'm a member and the people that are probably under the age of 50 or even younger than that.
If you're right now 30, 35 years of age, the average American is probably looking for a job, may have gone to college.
If so, is struggling with debt, trying to find a job that is commensurate with his educational skills and abilities.
These things are not plentiful.
And there are a lot of increasingly radicalized young men in the United States as a result.
They know they'll never see Social Security.
They know this is all fantasy world.
The world has changed.
They understand what the sovereign national debt means in terms of their long-term financial future.
The baby boomers, on the other hand, they keep pushing the I believe button.
These are the people who say, oh, well, the government will sort this out.
We've done this before.
Oh, they can print more money.
You go down to the younger people and they say that's nonsense.
And the boomers are predisposed, as I always was, to be very supportive of Israel.
And they just sort of cringe and turn away from the horror over there.
But everybody else looks at this and says, what's wrong with you?
This is just murder.
This is inexcusable.
We should have nothing to do with it.
So I'm not surprised by those numbers.
But remember, until you get these boomers to wake up, until they figure out that their pension funds are all going to go bust When we go into this financial crisis that's looming over us, when they figure out that we can't sell our bonds to anybody, and this new scheme from Besant is not going to work in terms of stable coin or anything else to try and attract foreign investment in the country, when they understand that, then things will really change.
But this boomer generation, remember, controls most of the wealth and they're fat, dumb, and happy.
Senator Angus King votes with the Democrats, but considers himself an independent.
Here's what he said two days ago, that I'm not voting to support Israel as long as there are starving children in Gaza.
Chris number 19.
To me, Israel has the resolution of this problem in their hands.
They should be sponsoring and encouraging and supporting a massive humanitarian program in Gaza.
They have not done that.
They have continually slowwalked and impeded the ability of aid, particularly food, to get into Gaza.
And it's time for them to change their path.
I issued a statement today.
I'm through voting for support for Israel as long as there are starving children in Gaza that have been caused by Israel's action or inaction with regard to humanitarian relief.
But I'm glad that the president has recognized the problem.
I'm not sure that we can do a lot about it.
I want to see what he's proposing.
But the real onus of this is on Israel.
It's interesting that a senator would say that, but the president recognized the problem is not the issue.
The problem is what the president is doing to please the donors, as you said at the outset of this conversation.
However, what do you think about France recognizing Palestine and the Brits claiming they will do so soon if the starvation doesn't stop?
I don't know how they're going to measure that.
Is the wall beginning to around Netanyahu beginning to crack?
Well, let's back up a minute just for a second and understand that Senator Angus King is a very skilled politician.
He knows his state very, very well.
He is not dependent upon money from the Jewish lobby to retain his seat.
And he can probably defeat someone who is then financed by the Jewish lobby against him.
So I would not characterize Angus King as someone who's leading the pack in a righteous direction.
I think he's looked over the terrain.
He's figured out what is right and wrong.
He's moving carefully.
But everything's a political calculation.
And, you know, he's right, of course, but that's all that I would say about it.
Now, as far as the French are concerned, one in every five adults in France right now is a Muslim Arab or African of some kind.
That makes a big difference.
And they live in sections of various cities like Paris or Lyon or Marseille.
They are very violent and they are unafraid to take to the streets and threaten the police, French citizens, or anybody that they don't like who doesn't agree with them.
So I would say that Macron is saying that, not necessarily for the reasons we would like.
He's recognized what is fundamentally wrong and there should be some way out of it.
And he's picked the Palestinian state issue as the way to do it.
But the truth is, it's in response to the popular uprising potential that exists in France right now.
I think Starmer is not far from that either.
So, you know, I would like to think that there's a better moral compass at work, Judge, but I just don't see it.
Speaking of a moral compass, General Donahue 4-Star, who commands hundreds of thousands of human beings, recently stated in a speech in Germany that United States ground forces could neutralize Russian ground forces in a certain place inside of Russia.
I think I have fairly characterized what he said.
Could a statement like this have been made of this magnitude to this military audience have been made without the express approval of Secretary Hegseth or even the president himself?
No, no.
In fact, I think it's important to point that out.
First of all, you know, military professionals, as a rule, do not speak publicly on these matters of policy.
You know, saying, well, we can overrun and take Kaliningrad, which is the portion of East Prussia that Stalin awarded or FDR awarded to Stalin towards the end of the war is what he's talking about.
And, you know, it's a sad and tragic legacy of the Second World War that this little spot was retained by the Soviets and then subsequently was inherited when Russia became Russia, because it's a permanent catalyst for conflict to some extent, because the Poles, Lithuanians don't like it.
The Germans, you know, they lost the war.
So at least their view is we lost the war.
We lost all of this territory.
There's nothing we can do about it.
But for him to stand up and say these things, first of all, he's inflating our capabilities to do everything that he outlines, which is not unusual, but it's always a bad idea.
But more important, he's communicating an intent.
And sadly, I think this aligns with President Trump and probably Secretary Hagseth and his deputy, Mr. Feinberg.
This is anti-Russian.
This is threatening to Russia.
And in their minds, they think this is somehow or another reinforcing the end of the coming deadline.
Now, we can talk about Donahue as where he came from and what he's known for, which is pretty disturbing given his past that he would end up at this four-star level.
But unfortunately, I think that President Trump probably likes this bellicosity, this sort of Bill O'Reilly bloviating from a general.
Is he deserving of the four stars or is there something in his background that the American public should have known about?
Well, he came up through mostly special operations.
He's a Delta Force product.
And then he ended up in command of the 82nd.
And he was one of the co-architects of the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
He was in charge on the ground of the 82nd Airborne Troops and the Marines that you saw on television.
And I don't know how to characterize that operation other than to suggest it was a disaster.
And under normal circumstances, I think he and probably everybody involved with that, up through and including McKenzie, the CENTCOM commander, would have been removed.
And then I would have thought the president would have replaced the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who's the senior military advisor, who should have been in there warning him that this was a bad idea, not telling the president you can't withdraw from Afghanistan.
That's not his call, which is one of the things that he and others said.
It should have been, you know, I'm not comfortable with the plan.
I think this is a bad idea.
The dead of summer is bad.
It's very risky.
And we probably shouldn't come out of Kabul, you know, the capital.
We should have staged something somewhere else.
I mean, the whole thing is a mess.
And he was in the very middle of it and mightily responsible for it.
And at the time, as I watched this and I talked to many friends who were, you know, either retired like me or still on active duty that were pointing to all the mistakes tactically that were made.
So that when this terrible loss of life occurred with the Marines because of the suicide bomber about whom we knew a great deal, sadly, nobody was really surprised.
But again, when there is no accountability judge, there is no performance.
Now, why would he then have ended up in Europe?
Well, before he got to Europe as a four-star, he was heavily involved in advising the Ukrainians on how to fight the Russians.
And he seems to have played a key role in this amphibious assault across the Dnieper River in Kherson.
And it was a catastrophe.
It cost the Ukrainians virtually the entire force they used.
It made no sense.
We couldn't define what the objective was.
And he is viewed as this loyal servant of greater Ukraine, as well as the United States.
And so everyone welcomes him back to Europe because he's anti-Russian.
Well, this sort of thing is worse than bad.
It's catastrophic.
And now he is the mouthpiece of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth in an area about which you've articulated so nicely, generals don't publicly speak.
What do you think the Kremlin thinks when a guy like this, with whose background they are obviously familiar, makes a statement like he made in Germany either earlier this week or last week?
Well, in Russia, when these kinds of things happen, the general accidentally falls out of the window on the seventh floor of a building in Moscow.
And that problem is solved.
So they probably look at us and say, who is in charge of the military?
You know, the Russians in general, the Soviets certainly were.
The czarists, Russians were worried about it.
I think Putin is very acutely sensitive to it.
And that's this issue of civilian control.
Who is really in control?
And I think it conveys the impression to the Russians, unfortunately, that the civilians are not in control.
You know, I read a comment the other day from the general that was in charge of the Manhattan Project, Leslie Grove.
And he went to his fellow generals in the Army at the time after the Adam bomb was dropped, and he said, I know you're talking about control of atomic weapons.
Gentlemen, these are not military weapons.
These aren't cannon.
These are not rifles.
All of these weapons should be under exclusively civilian control at all times because they're eminently political in character.
And you know what?
Everybody agreed.
And you know how we know that happened?
Because we read the statements that he made after he was retired in his memoir.
What I'm trying to tell you is nobody said that publicly.
Right.
It happened behind closed doors.
And this was true with Marshall during the Second World War.
There were many times when he strongly disagreed with the guidance he was getting from FDR.
And he made his views known, and then he smarted, saluted, went out, executed.
Did we know about that during the war?
Absolutely not.
Are you giving these historical examples because you suspect General Donahue was out on his zone and Secretary Hegseth and President Trump did not know ahead of time what he was saying, nor have they said anything publicly to neutralize what he said?
Well, two things.
First of all, we don't know whether or not he informed them publicly of what he was going to say, but I think it's very obvious that they agreed with the sentiment and they're happy with what they think is the impact.
It goes back to our earlier discussion.
The assumption that you get somewhere in international relations and in certainly state-to-state relations between Russia and ourselves by bullying or attempting to bully and threaten the Russians.
It's absolutely crazy.
It's incomprehensible.
And the sad part is we're also doing this from a very weakened position.
We're in no position to go toe-to-toe with the Russians, certainly not in Eastern Europe, not on the continent.
So why would he make these kinds of statements?
Why would he invite the possibility that if the Russians feel threatened enough, that they might do something to protect Kaliningrad?
It's a very short distance from Belorussia.
It is not difficult to move from Belorussia straight across this gap that exists in Poland and Lithuania between Kaliningrad and Belorussia.
Why would you invite such a thing?
That causes a major war to break out.
It's not well thought out.
It's more, as I said, this is sort of, you know, Bill O'Reilly quality Thinking and policymaking, bloviate, stand up and make incautious remarks and foolish statements that garner attention on the assumption that somehow or another this does anybody any good.
And any professional soldier that I'm familiar with in the German military, certainly in the Polish military, that would hear this, I would think they'd be horrified.
But who knows?
I don't know what the quality today is of the NATO forces' leadership.
Certainly it's not what it was back in the 1990s.
That's obvious.
Last subject matter, Colonel, do you think there's any geopolitical implications to the Epstein saga?
Do you think this might force Trump to bomb Iran in order to get Epstein off the front pages?
Well, let's be frank.
The Epstein problem is an existential challenge to the Trump presidency.
I think anybody who suggests otherwise is delusional.
I think this could bring him down just as surely as the Watergate scandal brought down Richard Nixon.
This is much worse because you're dealing with the potential involvement of children.
I mean, let's be frank, someone like Epstein is always present in places like Washington, D.C. or West Palm Beach or New York City or LA.
I mean, the man's just a procurer who happens to have good intelligence connections.
I mean, to be less polite about the whole thing, he's a very sophisticated, high-end pimp.
And if you traffic with people like that, you're always at risk of, as they say, if you lie down with pigs, you come up smelling like garbage.
So if you interact with somebody like this over a long period of time, whatever they're doing is going to rub off on you.
The problem now is that we don't know what's in these so-called Epstein files.
I can only imagine.
And we've had all sorts of leaks telling us about hours, maybe even thousands of hours of taped encounters.
And we keep hearing about the pedophilia that may be involved with this.
This is catastrophic for President Trump.
Remember, everybody voted for President Trump.
I don't want to say everybody, but most people voted for him because they thought he would be different from his predecessor.
He would be fundamentally different.
And they held him in much higher esteem because they thought he was a straight shooter.
It would tell things as they are.
They're beginning to find out that's not true.
And that's very, very dangerous.
And that's why I have tried to get people to understand just how volatile it is when a population, a broad population finally concludes that the class that rules them, whether they're aristocratic or otherwise, is unworthy of ruling them, unworthy of governing them.
And we know that we're governed right now by effectively a financial elite that has trillions of dollars at their disposal.
They're the ones who are calling the shots in Washington, and they're the ones that are setting the agenda for President Trump because he owes them his election.
So when you see that kind of thing and people decide, well, we don't think they're worth maintaining, retaining, eventually you get a rebellion.
And that's what happened in 1789 in France.
The population looked at the aristocratic leadership and said, these people are scum.
They're degenerate.
They're decayed.
And eventually it leads to the guillotine.
The last person they finally abandoned was the king.
Everybody wanted to give the king the benefit of the doubt.
And he really wasn't a bad human being.
He actually cared, but it was too late.
There were too many problems with his wife, with his family, and the people that were related to him and the aristocrats.
And so they all ended up going to the guillotine.
I'm not suggesting that all of these people are headed to the guillotine, at least not yet.
But my point is that the American electorate is looking at these people and saying these people are disgusting.
And they're disappointed in President Trump because they thought he was different.
They're beginning to see maybe not.
Looks like he's like everybody else.
Colonel McGregor, thank you, my dear friend.
Thank you for allowing me to go all across the board on all of these hot topics, which have been on the lips of many of us in my two-week absence.
It's great to be back.
It's great to be back with you, and I look forward to our continued work together.
Thank you, Colonel.
Okay, thank you, Judge.
Of course.
Sure.
Coming up later today at one o'clock this afternoon, Professor Glenn Deason.
At two o'clock this afternoon, Max Blumenthal.
▲
Export Selection