All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
35:02
Scott Ritter : NATO Collapsing.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.
Today is Monday, October 6, 2025.
Scott Ritter will be here with us in just a moment on NATO collapsing and on all these other things that we're watching as well.
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 Kayasaki, the author of Rich Dad 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 at CY Silver Prices are set to soar.
Well, 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.
Scott Ritter, welcome here, uh, my dear friend.
Before we get into uh NATO collapsing and its relationship to Ukraine, the Gaza Neo-Colonials, Steve Whitkop, Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, uh development deal, whatever you want to call it.
Why would anybody trust the United States and Israel to negotiate with?
They murder the people that negotiate with Israel.
Yeah, no, um you're 100% correct.
Uh why would anybody enter a negotiation of this nature?
One, I think it's imperative that Hamas um keep Israel on its back foot.
And Israel is on its back foot.
Understand this.
There would be no Trump deal if Israel thought it was winning this conflict.
Uh this deal is only possible by the fact that Hamas's resistance is ongoing, sustained, and unbeatable at this juncture.
Um, you know, Israel, again, when they started this ground defensive, this was the final offensive.
No more deals, no nothing.
We're coming in, we're killing everybody.
Yet now they're stalled, they're losing two or more tank crews a day.
Uh other guys are getting knocked off with snipers.
It's Hamas is unconquerable.
Um, and so Israel has no choice but to go forward.
But we know that Israel doesn't negotiate in good faith.
Uh the guys that are negotiating on behalf of Hamas were the ones Israel tried to kill in Qatar the other day.
You know, so you know, but it's it's imperative for Hamas not to allow Israel to paint Hamas into a corner.
Um Hamas must be seen as being willing to do that which is necessary to achieve a peace deal.
Uh and so they will.
Um I hope and pray that it works.
I mean, if it if if we can get a ceasefire, if we can have the Gazan people stay in their homes, if we can get the Arab world to rebuild Gaza, if we can get Israel to withdraw, if we can move towards a Palestinian state.
I mean, these are all you know the objectives that Hamas set out when they began this um crisis back on October 7th.
Um, but history shows that Israel is incapable of living up to any deal.
Uh Israel doesn't want peace.
Israel needs war.
Netanyahu needs war.
His peace is his enemy.
If if there is peace, Netanyahu will be kicked out of office, arrested, and put in jail for the rest of his life.
So this is a man who's looking for war.
Uh, but he also recognizes that Israel's in a very, very bad position right now.
Um, Not only is its military not succeeding, but its economy is floundering.
And more importantly for Netanyahu, he's losing the support of the United States.
It's slipping away.
I mean, it's like you know, melting like hot wax.
Um, you know, Trump has noted that you know the iron grip that Israel once enjoyed on the U.S. Congress isn't there anymore.
And we saw with the whole Charlie Kirk thing, you know, Christian evangelicals, Christian Zionists are starting to question, you know, if you're an American, how can you support Israel?
And Netanyahu's in an absolute panic.
So there's a there's there's a possibility for peace here.
But again, as you said, I don't trust Israel, and I certainly don't trust the United States.
Why would Hamas give up the hostages and give up their uh weapons?
That's the the two are their only negotiating points.
Well, the hostages, I think at this juncture have served their purpose.
Um I mean, the purpose of taking the hostages to begin with was twofold.
One, to lure Israel into Gaza and let Israel be Israel, which Israel has done, um, committing genocide and alienating the world.
If people don't recognize the strategic victory Hamas has achieved here, then they're ignorant of the reality of the Middle East.
Israel today is a reviled nation around the world.
Nations are kicking Israeli diplomats out of their countries, other nations are recognizing Palestine.
Everybody except the United States recognizes Israel as a practitioner of genocide.
Um this is a huge victory, a huge victory for Hamas.
And that was achievable only by the taking of hostages.
Um then the you know, the the the second thing was to use it to get Palestinians released.
Uh people need to remember that the Israelis are holding thousands of Palestinians hostage as we speak.
These are people who haven't been charged with anything.
These are women, these are children.
They're being held by the Israelis, tortured by the Israelis, raped by the Israelis, and um, you know, Hamas wants them free.
And so we're at the juncture now where you know Israel has done what Israel is going to do.
Um the world knows what Israel is, and Israel's not going to be able to shake that off.
And you know, right now the the release of up to I think 1,200 plus uh Palestinians who are held hostage by the Israelis, held prisoner, uh, are going to be exchanged.
I I think the utility of these hostages is run out.
At this point, to keep them longer, um Hamas runs the risk of being, you know, painted as the bad guys.
And um, you know, already around the world, you know, Hamas is tainted by the United States and Israel as a terrorist organization.
Uh, but much of the world recognizes Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement, freedom fighters.
Um, and Hamas wants to keep it that way.
And I think at this juncture, from a humanitarian standpoint, there's just nothing further to be gained by holding on to these hostages.
Why would uh Donald Trump have said to Benjamin Netanyahu uh stop the bombing in Gaza and Netanyahu having figuratively thumbed his nose at him and accelerated the bombing in Gaza?
Because Israel operates, according to Israel.
Again, I just want to reiterate to everybody Israel's not a friend of the United States.
Um, you know, Israel does what Israel is going to do, and they use America as a tool.
But you know, and and we we saw that.
So I mean, look, there might be a military argument here.
I I struggle to make it, but you know, many of these operations are intelligence-based, planned in advance, um, and they have an execution timetable.
And it may have been um impossible or very difficult to pull the plug on missions that are already underway.
We don't know the complexity of the operation on the ground where they're ground controllers, where they're intelligence uh assets, uh, things of that nature.
So I don't know.
I, you know, the I'm just trying to be kind here.
Um, but the bottom line is I understand that you're trying to be kind.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead, please, Scott.
The bottom line is.
Well, what about the West Bank?
Trump says they'll never annex it.
They already annexed it.
I mean, if Trump's gonna say you're never going to annex it, then Trump needs to pass a law, uh, get Congress to pass a law that criminalizes the theft of uh Palestinian land and makes any American uh who steals Palestinian land subject to criminal prosecution when they return to the United States.
But never pass the Congress bought and paid for by APAC.
Wouldn't pass a Congress bought and paid for by APAC, but as the president has noted, that Congress may not exist much longer.
Um the reality of what these settlers have done, many Americans live in blissful ignorance about the horrific reality of these people.
These I don't, you know, this is not an anti-Semitic statement, it's an accurate statement.
These are Brooklyn Jews who have become radicalized, uh, and they go to Israel for the sole purpose of stealing Palestinian land, murdering Palestinians, kicking them out of their homes, and then they settle there, they don't work.
These are not gainfully employed people.
They sit there and they receive a stipend from the Israeli government courtesy to the American taxpayer.
Their healthcades paid for, their pensions are paid for.
Their job is just to steal land and declare it as part of greater Israel.
And they're doing that.
If the president's serious about not permitting this, then he needs to hold these people criminally liable for what they're doing.
Switching over to uh Ukraine, what is the current state of the special military operation?
The Russians have made it clear that they're carrying out a war of attrition, and their job is to kill Ukrainians, and they business is good.
Uh the Ukrainians are dying by the bushel.
Every day in every sector, there's over a battalion worth of Ukrainians being killed.
Um the Russians, you know, are not losing anywhere near the casualties that Trump and Kellogg and Whitkov and others are claiming.
Um it is a bloody war, high-intensity war.
There are occasions when the Ukrainians do launch localized counterattacks where they achieved uh temporary drone superiority over a sector of the battlefield.
And when you have drone drone superiority, it's a bad day for anybody underneath.
The Russians tend to enjoy joint drone superiority or drone supremacy.
But every once in a while the Ukrainians are able to surge forward and get it, and you kill some Russians.
Um the Russians have never denied that they're not taking casualties.
But the Russians say that we can handle this.
We've got this under control.
Our casualties are far less than what the Ukrainians are.
And Putin made a point of this in his Valdez statement.
He said, you know, we're focused on one thing.
The army that doesn't have manpower can't fight.
And the Ukrainian army is rapidly reaching that point.
The Russians are in the business of killing Ukrainians, and they are doing it uh by the bushel full.
And um, that's where we are.
The Russians advance where they can advance every day.
They're taking, you know, several more uh towns and villages.
Um but their job right now is basically to deplete the Ukrainian military of manpower.
And they're doing that in a in a very efficient, bloody horrible way.
Is there uh disenchantment amongst Russian elites with the uh pace of the special military operation?
Is there any pressure on President Putin, whether it's some elites or academics or politicians or military personnel or intelligence personnel to um uh bring about an end to this?
Short answer is no.
The long answer is look, there are some residual elites.
Um, you know, before the special military operation um, you know, kicked in, there were uh political and economic elites who had ties back to um the the golden age of Western economic and political intervention, the 1990s.
And uh they maintained uh a certain level of um influence throughout Putin's you know formative years as president, and it and they've been a problem for Putin because you know they represent a linkage to the West that isn't necessarily to the benefit of Russia, but politically Putin you know couldn't delink them because there are consequences at the polls.
Yes, Vladimir Putin is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected president, and if you piss off enough Russians, you don't win the vote.
Um but because of the special military operation, um, the West divorced Russia, and these political elites became disenfranchised.
Um many of them fled, but many of them stayed.
So I would say that there might be residual resentment amongst some of these elites, but they are so far removed from the center of power, it's not even funny.
I know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to denigrate the person put forward this uh theory so far off base.
Uh That person needs to go to Russia.
That person needs to meet with the elites he's talking about, not look at Russia long distance through Russian television programs, sit down with Russians, meet with the Russians, see the reality of Russia, and see the reality of the broad spectrum of support that President Putin enjoys amongst the Russian people, elites and non-elites alike.
President Putin's under no pressure from anybody.
This man is as pressure free as he could be.
Well, I agree with you.
You and I have been there.
We will both be there very soon.
But the person uh we're talking about actually used the unthinkable word, coup as a COUP.
I mean, without naming names, that person was a respected uh individual, used that word.
I mean, I got a lot of pushback from our friends in Russia over that.
I don't subscribe to it, you don't subscribe to it, but he does.
Well, I mean, everybody's the beauty of living in a free world is that you have freedom of speech, and you get to say what you want to say, but you need to be held accountable for it as well.
Uh there is no evidence whatsoever that there's anything remotely resembling the C-word taking place in Russia today.
Uh just the opposite.
Um, you know, the the big C-word that exists in Russia is corruption.
And there is, you know, residual corruption from the time when Putin became president back in 2000 when he was first elected, uh, up through you know the mobilization in uh 2022, when you know troops were sent to the mobilization centers only to find that the people managing them had taken the money that was supposed to be used to buy uniforms and maintain weapons and everything and put it in their pockets, bought new cars and new houses.
And um the the Russian that was a big wake-up call.
Uh and to this day, you see generals, senior generals, senior uh bureaucrats being arrested for corruption.
Um, this is a problem.
But Putin is cleaning it up.
The Russians are cleaning it up.
Um sometimes there's overreach, and I think my friend Alexander Zurianov was caught up in uh in overreach.
Um, but by and large, the the the big boogeyman hanging around you know, Vladimir Putin's presidency was corruption.
And that's being cleaned up.
And the more he cleans up corruption, the the stronger his hold on power is.
Remember, this is not a dictator.
This is a man who rules because the Russian people love him.
And the last time I saw a coup take place in a nation where the people supported their president democratically by over 80, you know, 80 percent, it for you've never seen a coup take place in Russia.
It doesn't happen.
Listen, I like and I respect the person who made these uh allegations.
He just looks at things differently than uh than the rest of us do.
And from talking to you and other people in Russia, in Moscow, people you and I will be with shortly.
Not a scintilla of evidence uh for this.
Um is NATO collapsing?
Well, NATO's been collapsing for a while.
I mean, NATO, the the collapse of NATO, one could say began at its birth when uh when it was created for no reason.
Uh you know, to artificially um, you know uh sustain a crisis environment that uh could keep the United States in, uh, keep the Russians out, keep the Germans down.
That was what Lord uh Lord Ismay said uh what one of the first Secretary General of NATO.
Um but you know, NATO's heyday was during the Cold War, uh, during the 1970s and 80s when you know it became sort of the premier defensive alliance in the military alliance the world has ever seen.
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, um that the justification for this alliance went away.
NATO has been struggling ever since.
And through that struggle, it's primarily a political struggle, uh, economic struggle.
Um, it's not a military struggle because NATO didn't have any real enemies.
And so the NATO military atrophied over that time, and they became addicted to American weapons, and American weapons just aren't as good as everybody thinks they are.
Um, and and so now we have NATO, you know, with with militaries that can't fight, can't get out of the barracks, addicted to an American um weapons you know supply chain, which is now been proven to be unreliable.
Because what happens when America's ally Israel starts banging off weapons and needs it?
Uh the weapons get taken from other allies, the ones in the Pacific and the ones in Europe.
Um it's done.
And then NATO itself, you know, has this is part of a European uh elite that has committed economic suicide by delinking Europe from you know Russian energy.
And uh the economic consequences are horrific.
So as is as Europe collapses, NATO collapses, and they're both collapsing right now.
Does NATO have weapons uh funded or produced by the United States, or does the U.S. military in Europe have these weapons?
I mean, there is no NATO arm.
There's a commanding general of NATO, but there's no NATO army, is there?
Well, actually, I mean that there is NATO forces.
There's forces.
Every NATO member has uh has a military structure.
And um some of these units are earmarked for NATO.
So they're you know, they have NATO missions, NATO assignments, and other units.
Are there U.S. Army and Marines in Europe not subject to American generals, but subject to NATO generals?
Well, no, NATO generals are American generals.
Uh the United States isn't subjected to anybody but the President of the United States.
That's just the way it works.
There's not going to be a foreign general that orders American troops to do jack.
Uh that's just the reality.
The commander of ground forces in Europe today is an American four-star general Christopher Donahue, um, and who will always be an American um because we're just not going to allow foreigners to order American con uh troops into combat.
That it doesn't work that way.
If there's going to be a war in Europe that involves American troops, the President of the United States is going to make the decision to make that happen.
Not the Secretary General, not the military uh committee of NATO, nobody.
Um that's that's just a reality.
There, you know, there I think the biggest um, you know, uh where you see America's influence, the the larger isn't air power, because air power has been where uh NATO has been investing a lot of money.
You see the F-35s, and again, it's done, you know, for financial reasons.
It's done to help Lockheed Martin or whoever the hell makes that aircraft uh make them a lot of money.
Um, you know, we we we sell the F-35s, we sold the F-16s, um, and and and such.
But you know, we also sold Patriot missiles, we sold artillery systems.
But what they're finding is that the United States has strings attached to everything, and sometimes those strings are attached to uh you know walls that get pulled in place to shut down um the supply of weapons, patriots.
Uh Europe isn't gonna see any more patriots.
Um those patriots are gonna go to Israel, they're gonna go to the United States, both in terms of replenishing what we need in Europe, because now we're waking up to the fact that if there is or is a shooting war with Russia, we need a heck of a lot more missiles than we have.
And also, if there's gonna be a shooting war with China, we need missiles, and we're we just don't have them.
And so the United States is basically saying we're um we're we're we're we're we're shutting down that pipeline for you.
Is Ukraine going to get tomahawks from the United States?
No, they well, first of all, they'd never get them directly from the United States.
The the discussion that appears to be taking place is that the Netherlands, um, and if you saw the the Netherlands prime minister was just in um in Ukraine today doing a solemn march with Zelensky, you know, celebrating or you know, uh being sorrowful about the losses and all this.
Um and the Dutch have been big talkers about how they're gonna support.
Um and the Dutch in 2023 said they wanted to buy the Tomahawk.
The Tomahawk sales were approved in 2025.
Uh money has been allocated, uh it's been tested on Dutch uh ships, and in 2028, uh the Tomahawks will begin to be delivered to the Dutch.
As the president has said, we will sell weapons to NATO, and then NATO can decide to do what they want.
So the route for the Tomahawk to come to Ukraine, if it does, will be through the Netherlands.
But that decision hasn't been made yet.
Um, because you know the Dutch would have to commit military resources uh to assist the Ukrainians.
Uh the Ukrainians aren't trained up on this, they they don't know how to use them.
Um then the Dutch would have to uh also have to make uh an argument for accelerated delivery of the Tomahawk because wait until 2028 for the Tomahawks to come to the Dutch and then for the Dutch to deliver them to the Ukraine.
There won't be Ukraine back then.
Ukraine is desperate now, right now.
They if they were going to ever have the need for a long-range strike to, you know, and a hope and a prayer of you know getting the Russians to come to the negotiating table, it's now.
Now it's a feel thing.
It isn't gonna have if they use the Tomahawks, it would be a nuclear War and we'd all be dead.
But um the the vector wouldn't be from the United States to Ukraine.
The vector would be through a NATO country.
Right now, the only NATO country um that is in the procurement process is the Netherlands.
Here's the hot head to whom you referred uh earlier.
We've seen this clip, but we'll play it again.
General Donahue saying how easy it would be for his troops to take over Kaliningrad.
If you look at Kaliningrad, and it's you know you can argue back and forth, but it's about 47 miles wide.
Surrounded by NATO on all sides.
There's absolutely no reason why that A2AD bubble to deter Russia, we cannot take that down from the ground in a time frame that is unheard of and faster than we've ever been able to do.
We've already planned that, we've already developed it.
Why the hell would he have said something like that?
That's this past summer.
That's just three months ago.
I think he said it because he came into office realizing that um NATO is very weak, very weak, and his job is to project uh an aura of strength.
Um and so I think he was ordered to say this.
You know, uh Chris Donahue's smart enough to know that he just can't get ahead of uh you know NATO planning and and what America's willing to support.
And so, you know, he was ordered to, you know, we we seek peace through strength, and the idea is to appear strong and make Russia feel vulnerable by by you know projecting a potential threat to Kaliningrad, the the hope would be that Russia would divert resources to Kaliningrad that um otherwise might go to Ukraine or go up to St. Petersburg where Russia's putting in a new um you know uh military district uh opposite of uh Finland.
Um and I think that's the purpose.
But the the bottom line is he just doesn't I I can't say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but the words he says reflective around surrounded by NATO.
Does he realize that the NATO that surrounds Kaliningrad is the Baltics and Poland, and that neither one of them possess the kind of offensive strike capacity that um that Donahue is speaking of?
Um if any of these nations tried to crack the Kaliningrad nut, they'd be slaughtered in a heartbeat.
But moreover, uh Donahue needs to understand that Kaliningrad's not some sort of throwaway territory, it is the Russian Federation, it is Mother Russia.
And if you go after Kaliningrad, it's like going after Moscow and you're gonna die.
And that's what I said to Chris Donahue when he made that statement is you just committed suicide because there is an esconder S, that's a new missile, or there's an arrest.
It has your name on it.
You won't live.
You're the command and control of this operation of this insanity.
And if you gave the orders to execute Operation reduced Kaliningrad, you know, bubble, um, you die almost immediately because Russia will take you out with weapons you can't defend yourself against.
This is the stupidity of statements like that.
I know why he made it, and I have enough respect for Chris Donahue to to recognize that he was put in a very difficult situation, and he doesn't believe a word of what he said.
Here's uh President Putin last week, very articulate, very knowledgeable, talking about Tomahawks, uh, Chris number six.
It's dangerous.
As for the Tomahawks, it's a powerful arm.
Perhaps not the most modernized, but it's powerful, poses serious threat.
This will not change in any way the balance of powers on the battlefield, the fundamental issues of the armed forces of Ukraine.
No matter how many UAVs they get.
And no matter how many lines they create with those UAVs, without the personnel, there will be no one to lead those battles.
They have to change the tactics.
Will this pose damage to our relations?
Where we see light at the end of the tunnel, of course.
Of course.
Without direct involvement of the US officers is impossible.
Which means a brand new stage of escalation, even between in the relations between Russia and the US.
We even have them to give.
Oh, we we have Tomahawks.
Um we could give them, but we're not going to.
Like I said, we're not going to give anything to Ukraine.
That's not how this works.
Uh NATO has to buy the Tomahawks, and then a political decision has to be made by both NATO by the NATO country involved.
And again, I mentioned Netherlands being the only candidate for this, and the United States.
So we have to give the Netherlands re-export authority.
But we also have to get Congress.
When he says they can't be operated without the personnel, he must mean without American personnel because of the top secret information needed to operate them.
There's certain, yeah.
Yes.
I mean, the ones that we use, the ones we gave to the Brits, um, they, they have all this, you know, we're selling, um, we're, we're selling Tomahawks to Japan and we're going to sell Tomahawks to the Dutch.
And the question is do these variants have the same linkage?
Do they require an American footprint on both?
And I think the answer is no.
And so this export version of the Tomahawk could, in theory, be made available to Ukraine without American hands.
It wouldn't be as effective.
The targeting would have to be derived from NATO sources and things of that.
You wouldn't act to have the Americans doing the uh crypto.
Um they would use their own uh crypto.
Um but you know, in theory, there you could come up with an export version that doesn't require American troops.
But if anything happened today, if they suddenly yeah, it could only be with with uh America.
And this is the danger that people need to understand.
Putin opened the door to um a one-year moratorium on new start, which is going to expire tragically on February 5th of next year.
The treaty's gone.
And unless we keep that cap in place of 1,550 warheads, we're going to go into a nuclear strategic nuclear uh arms race.
It's going to see the number of warheads quadruple almost overnight.
And uh ultimately we'll have this you know arms race where new weapons are being deployed.
Very dangerous situation.
Um Putin has said he'd like a one-year moratorium so the United States and uh Russia could talk about you know what's next, how to keep this under control.
Um but as he pointed out, that that will not happen if the United States facilitates the transfer of Tomahawk missiles.
And again, you know, the the Russians have been very good about acting on reality, not on intent.
They're very calm, they they don't go off on rumors, they don't, you know, you you you're no one's been successful in provoking them into any major escalation.
But when we're talking about a nuclear-capable missile being provided to uh Ukraine, that violates every you know facet of Russia's nuclear doctrine, uh, which says, by the way, just so people understand, if a nuclear power provides a non-nuclear power with the means to attack Russia, Russia will treat the attack as if coming from the nuclear power and it will prompt a nuclear response.
So it no matter how you spend this thing, providing Ukraine with tomahawk missiles makes the United States the enemy, and it clears Russia to use nuclear weapons, which is the last thing we want.
So we need to stop this talk.
This needs to be nipped in the bud.
You know, last December, President Trump gave a um an interview to Time magazine about Biden signing off on the attackums missile and providing the intelligence for that.
You know, it's the exact parallel of what they're talking about here, giving the Tomahawks to Ukraine, give them the intelligence to do deep strike.
And at that time, Trump said this is insanity.
This could lead to a war, and it could have.
He said, I will never support this.
And at that time, Congress, the members of Congress, Republicans, put forward a House resolution designed to prohibit President Biden from going forward with the ATACMs and providing the intelligence.
Congress needs to do the same thing now.
They need to be consistent because what the president's administration is talking about today is the exact parallel of what Biden was talking about back in December.
But worse, it's an escalation.
And Congress needs to step in right now and say, not just no, but hell no.
You're not allowed to sell the tomahawk to anybody, and you're not allowed to provide intelligence information that would facilitate the targeting of the use of weapons into Russia because that is literally an act of war.
If some Russian intel officials or military lieutenants are looking at a radar screen and they see tomahawks, uh in in the sky coming to Moscow, can they tell if they're nuclear uh armed?
No, I mean there might be some other intelligence indicators if they know exactly where it was launched from anything.
Bottom line is um if if tomahawks are on the way to Moscow, uh you have to assume they're nuclear.
And um, and that's going to trigger something.
I mean, I can't speak for the Russians.
Um, they've shown historically to be very responsible and very mature.
Um they you know, we've avoided global annihilation on several occasions because of the reticence of Russian officers to you know pull the nuclear trigger.
Um so who, you know, I'd like to believe that the Russians will continue to be mature, but Tomahawks to Moscow?
Come on, judge.
What if I said that um you know a reshnick to Washington, D.C. How would you expect Congress to respond?
How would you expect the president to respond?
How are the American people supposed to respond?
Oh, it's okay.
It's just an Oreshnik.
It only took out the Capitol.
It only took out the Pentagon.
Don't worry about it.
The Lincoln Memorial, gone.
Don't worry about it.
It's just an Oreshnik.
You send a Tomahawk to Moscow.
You're hitting one of the most historic cities in the world.
You're hitting the capital of Russia.
I mean, what are the Russians supposed to be willing to give up?
The Kremlin?
St. Bezos?
The Bolshevik.
You hit anything in Moscow with a weapon of that nature, and all hell is going to be broken loose, just as it would if somebody hit Washington, D.C. with a missile of the same level.
People need to put on their thinking caps real quick because this thing's getting stupid.
General Kellogg should stop talking about President Trump authorizing tomahawks.
He should be fired on the spot.
You know, he had to um Kellogg actually had to walk that statement back the next day.
He was in a in a meeting, a security meeting in Warsaw, and he had to say, oh no, no, it's just speculation.
Uh that I can't speak for any deliberations taking place in Washington, D.C., then why did you?
He's grossly irresponsible.
I mean, this is a man who was literally decorated by Zelensky as a hero of Ukraine for the work he does for Ukraine.
And, you know, and we're supposed we need to recognize who he works for.
He doesn't work for the United States.
He works for Ukraine and Ukrainian interests.
And the proof is in the fact that he ran his mouth in such a grossly irresponsible.
He should have been fired on the spot.
People have been fired for far less.
You know, back in the in the lead up to the Gulf War, the Secretary of the Air Force made a statement about the upcoming air campaign, speaking about what we were planning on doing to the Iraqis uh in Desert Storm.
And uh he was fired on the spot.
He doesn't get to talk like that.
Uh Keith Kellogg is speaking literally on behalf of the president, should be fired on the spot.
He is grossly irresponsible.
Scotty, thank you very much, my dear friend.
Uh great conversation all across the board.
Much appreciated.
I will see you soon, but we look forward to seeing you next week.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you.
Coming up uh one more today at four o'clock on all of this, but mainly on Israel and Gaza, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Josh Napoleon over judging freedom,
▲
Export Selection