All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
24:49
AMB. Chas Freeman : America’s Self-Destructive Hegemony
|

Time Text
Stocks At Record Highs Defying Gravity 00:02:15
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom back from Moscow.
Today is Tuesday, October 21st, 2025.
Ambassador Chaz Freeman will be with us in just a moment on America's hegemony.
Why is it so self-destructive?
But first this.
History tells us every market eventually falls.
Currencies collapse.
And look at where we are now.
37 trillion in national debt.
Stocks at record highs defying gravity.
So what happens next?
Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up.
And this dollar, it buys less every day.
When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either.
But one thing will.
Gold.
I've said it on my show for years.
Gold survives collapse.
Central bankers know this and billionaires know it.
That's why they're buying more.
Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time?
Call my friends at Lear Capital to find out.
Ask questions.
Get the free information.
There's no pressure.
And that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear.
And right now, you can get up to $20,000 in bonus metals with a qualified purchase.
Call 800-511-4620 or go to LearjudgeNap.com today.
Hi, Ambassador.
Welcome here, my dear friend.
Thank you for accommodating my crazy schedule due to international travels and canceled flights.
But it's good to be back and it's good to be back with you.
Ambassador, can the state of Israel exist without the United States?
No, flatly no.
We subsidize it.
The taxpayers make annual transfers of money to it.
Accusing Everyone of Something 00:07:31
My wife actually used to sign the check, which was collected by the Israeli embassy at 8 a.m. on October 1st, the first day of the fiscal year.
That was back when we didn't shut down the government for no reason.
And once the guy that picked up the check actually thanked her.
This is when your wife was working for the State Department and the guy to whom you refer is some official of the Israeli government.
And the era of which we speak is before we wired funds as everybody does today.
Yeah, that's correct.
That is correct.
How do you account, Ambassador, for American belligerency?
It suddenly seems in the era of Donald Trump.
I guess you could say the same for Joe Biden, that America is not avoiding war.
America is not afraid of war.
And now it appears China, Pete Hag Seth, Venezuela, murders in the Caribbean, Ukraine, threats of tomahawks.
And you know, I was in Moscow last week, and that's all everybody's talking about.
Tomahawks, Tomahawks, Tomahawks.
What accounts for the new American belligerency?
Very hard to say, but I would say that it was during the Cold War.
I remember JFK saying, you know, if I make a mistake in domestic policy, it can embarrass me.
But if I make a mistake in foreign policy, it could kill us all.
There was a sense of the need to be cautious and to take great care in managing foreign relations.
Then the Cold War ended.
The Soviet Union defaulted on its contest with us for global hegemony.
We achieved it, and we had an outburst of hubris, overweening pride.
We imagined we were omniscient and we were omnipotent and that foreign policy was suddenly just a discretionary activity.
I mean, after all, we have two great oceans separating us from any possible enemy.
They're no enemies, although we're working on developing some in the Western Hemisphere.
And so I think we began to treat foreign policy much as we treat domestic policy.
And rather than go through the tedious process of trying to persuade foreigners to do things our way, which is what diplomacy is all about, we decided we would, you know, start by with threats and go to sanctions and then throw in money and then the Marines, airmen, soldiers.
and the Navy.
And that would somehow cause foreigners to want to do things our way.
Well, it hasn't worked out.
What possible justification is there for the wanton murders in the Caribbean, which now have produced an extraordinary legal problem that the president sought to avoid because two people survived, were detained for two days and left and released.
Those people now have a cause of action against the federal government and Donald Trump himself for attempted murder and kidnapping, something they never imagined would happen because Heg Seth said we'll kill everybody.
Well, apparently they did typical double-tap attacks.
That is, if they failed to destroy, kill everybody with the first attack, they reattacked.
But, you know, it's worse than just the two people who survived.
We have stories now from the parents of some of those who were murdered.
These are ordinary people, fishermen.
They're not headed to the United States.
There was no fentanyl involved.
And we've had this escalate into a war of words between President Trump and President Petro of Colombia, which is the major source of cocaine and a major source of other drugs, and which now there's no cooperation between us.
So in order to punish Colombia for calling him a murderer, which they did with some justification, President Trump basically kneecapped their effort to help us stop the flow of drugs.
There's no control now on that.
This is counterproductive foreign policy of the most egregious sort, not to mention that it's utterly illegal.
Before we transition over to Israel, I did receive, I don't think he wants me to mention his name, I did receive an email, actually when I was on the flight yesterday over the Atlantic from a retired admiral whom I know who was very praiseworthy of the position that Judging Freedom and our guests have taken in condemning what's going on, saying it had never happened before.
He wouldn't have condoned it.
He would have resigned if ordered to do it.
This person is very well known, which is why I won't use his name without his permission.
But somebody else well known, whose name I am happy to use is my friend Senator Rand Paul, who on Sunday and on the floor of the Senate has blasted the administration.
Chris.
So far, more than 20 people, Senator, have been killed in six different strikes.
Do you believe that these strikes against these suspected drug boats are legal?
No, they go against all of our tradition.
You know, when you kill someone, you should know if you're not at war, not in a declared war, you really need to know someone's name, at least.
You have to accuse them of something.
You have to present evidence.
So all these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.
And for decades, if not centuries, when you stop people at sea in international waters or in your own waters, you announce that you're going to board the ship and you're looking for contraband, smuggling, or drugs.
This happens every day off of Miami.
But we know from Coast Guard statistics that about 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs.
So if our policy now is to blow up every ship we suspect or accuse of drug running, that would be a bizarre world in which 25% of the people might be innocent.
It is the difference between war and peace.
In war, though, you don't ask people's name.
But if they want all-out war where we kill anybody and everybody that is in the country of Venezuela or coming out, that has to have a declaration of war.
It's something that is not pretty, very expensive.
And I'm not in favor of declaring war on Venezuela, but the Congress should vote.
The president shouldn't do this by himself.
Congress is supine, Ambassador.
Congress looks the other way, either because they have no courage, no fidelity to the Constitution, or they're afraid of Donald Trump.
U.S. at War with Russia? 00:09:06
All of the above.
And they're basically absent without leave, AWOL, or missing in action.
And it is cowardly.
And it's one of the reasons I think the American people have such a very low opinion of our representatives in the Congress.
They don't stand up and stand for any principle.
They don't challenge the president.
This Congress is a bunch of followers.
They might as well be ducks following a mother duck.
They don't deviate from anything that the president decrees.
Well, back to American belligerency.
What leverage does President Trump have over President Putin for this meeting in Budapest, tentatively scheduled for next week?
Very little.
President Putin knows that he's winning the war.
Knowledgeable observers of the war agree with that.
He can go on and take all of Donetsk, which he has insisted on doing, given the collapse of the Minsk Accords on the part of their repudiation by Ukraine and their European sponsors.
The only way to secure the rights of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine is, in his judgment, to annex those oblasts.
He said he'd compromise on the line of control in the two southernmost oblasts that are partially occupied by Russia, Saporizia and Kherson.
But he will not compromise on Donetsk, and he has no reason to do so.
I think it is important to note that President Trump, although widely condemned in Europe for having admitted that the way this war is going to end is with Russia in charge of those Ukrainian territories that it has taken from Ukraine,
that is a step toward realism on the part of the president and maybe a step toward some kind of useful dialogue.
If President Trump in Budapest, where he's being hosted by Viktor Orban, who's one of the few Europeans that is a bridge between Russia and the West, if he has a dialogue that is focused on something other than a ceasefire, on sorting out the conflicts of interest that led to this conflict, then he might get somewhere.
But he's not in a position to impose a peace on Putin, and he should recognize that.
You know, he's all over the place on realism.
Just yesterday, this is wild, Ambassador.
It's a very brief clip, but just yesterday he said Ukraine can still win.
I don't know if he says these things because he believes it or if he says these things to try and put the Russians off guard.
I mean, in my communications, and I was pretty high up in the foreign ministry, the people with whom I spoke, just last week, they fully get him.
This type of stuff does not rattle them.
They understand him.
They recognize the way he can manipulate domestic politics.
But I look for your response.
Chris, cut number nine.
Just a few weeks ago, Anna, you said that Ukraine could possibly win the war.
And they could still win it.
I don't think they will, but they could still win it.
I never said they would win it.
I said they could win.
Anything can happen.
You know, war is a very strange thing.
Anything can happen.
We have a president who can say anything at all.
One thing one moment and another the next.
And I think it's really, I don't understand.
I can't answer the question you asked.
Does he believe this nonsense or does he just mouth it for political effect?
Or maybe both.
And this is all very confusing to, as you must have learned when you visited that awful Stalinist building in Moscow.
That awful Stalinist building in Moscow reinforced my respect for Russian understanding of America.
Their understanding of our history, our culture, our mores, our politics far exceeds our understanding of theirs.
Not unimportant.
Remember, Sunza 2,500 years ago said, know yourself and know your enemy.
You will never lose a battle.
Right.
I spoke to 450 students at the School of International Diplomacy of Moscow State University, one of the graduates of which is current foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.
450 graduate students, all fluent in English, all having already, before I got there, a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
So concepts like separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review.
None of this was foreign to them.
I'm not saying it exists in Russia.
I don't know if it does.
I'm going to guess it does not.
But their understanding of our system was truly remarkable.
And when I spoke with Larry Johnson, was with me, when we spoke with Maria Zakharova, who's the foreign policy foreign ministry spokesperson, and I asked her about the tomahawks, she said the same thing.
Her boss said, it will not change anything on the battlefield, but it will change our relationship with the United States.
Very interesting.
Between the lines, Ambassador, U.S. at war with Russia?
Yes, definitely.
May I make their comment about, I wasn't at your lecture, which I regret, but the sad fact is that the Constitution and the laws are no longer a reliable guide to American behavior.
So to understand the Constitution as these students do verges on an exercise of nostalgia at this point.
Second point is that with regard to the tomahawks, of course, all of the deep strikes that Ukraine makes into Russia are informed by American intelligence and would not be possible without support from American intelligence.
There are Americans in Ukraine who are guiding this war overtly sometimes, as in the failed offensive a couple of years ago, covertly today.
If tomahawks are provided, they can only be operated by Americans.
This would be Americans firing directly at targets in Russia.
And you couldn't have a better definition of war than that.
And I would say that if they do, if we do do that, which I hope we don't, that the lifespan of those firing the tomahawks will be very short indeed, because there will be direct Russian retaliation against the intelligence facilities that guide the tomahawks and against the launchers themselves and the people there.
And if I may add, that would be perfectly lawful retaliation under international law.
Perfectly lawful for him to shoot.
I hate the thought of it.
It chills me for the Russians to shoot at Americans because they're shooting at Russians.
Pretty basic.
Yes.
And if Venezuela had the strength, it would also lawfully retaliate for the murder of its citizens and Trinidadian citizens and Colombian citizens on the seas between Venezuela and Trinidad, which is very far from the United States.
And incidentally, it appears that Trinidad is a transit station for drugs, not for marijuana and for some cocaine, to West Africa and to Europe, not to the United States.
The War in Gaza 00:05:52
So this is not justified even on the terms that the administration has employed to justify it.
The war in Gaza has abated.
I don't want to say it's over.
I don't want to even say there's a ceasefire.
I can't imagine the Israelis living up to the promise.
What has Israel achieved there in two years?
It has totally destroyed the infrastructure and made Gaza unlivable.
It has murdered several hundred thousand people.
It has exposed itself to the world as a vicious, sadistic military operation with no constraints.
It has damaged its own reputation and ours beyond repair.
These are not accomplishments of which anyone should be proud.
Let me say that anyone who knows, who's followed the Israeli-Palestinian issue over the years was well aware that the Israelis would quickly find a pretext for resuming the war or the annihilation more accurately.
Actually, apparently one of their bulldozers ran over some of their own unexploded ordinance.
And there was an explosion which they attributed to Hamas.
And they also had been sheltering various gangs that they employed prior to the so-called ceasefire to do two things.
One, to attack Hamas inside Gaza and inform on Hamas.
And second, to steal food so that the food embargo that they imposed was more effective than even the settlers intercepting and destroying the food at the border could make it.
Hamas, apparently with President Trump's permission initially, has tried to restore order and eliminate these bandits, thieves, and collaborators with Israel.
And their initial reaction was to seek the support of the IDF to cross over the yellow line into the area that the IDF continues to occupy, which is about half of Gaza.
And they eventually, the Israeli army was told not to protect them.
In the meantime, Hamas had said, you have 72 hours to turn yourself in.
There will be a judicial process with witnesses and a trial if you do.
But if you don't turn yourself in, we know who you are and we're going to come after you.
And they've done that.
Some pretty ugly scenes of execution by firing squad with no due process.
But then again, the gangs were offered an opportunity for some sort of due process and amnesty, and they turned it down.
These gangs are funded by Israel.
Yes.
And they have been recruited, as I said, partly to collect intelligence, partly to attack and kill members of Hamas.
They've been guilty of many things, including killing journalists on behalf of Israel.
But from the point of view of the ordinary people in Gaza, their main crime has been to steal food and then resell it at very inflated prices.
Just before we conclude, here's the man who wants to redevelop Gaza thanks to the intercession of his father-in-law, cut number 14.
Before the hostages actually come out, you decide to go to Gaza.
And what did you see?
It looked almost like a nuclear bomb had been set off in that area.
And then you see these people moving back.
And I asked the IDF, where are they going?
Like, I'm looking around.
These are all runes.
And they said, well, they're going back to the areas where their destroyed home was onto their plot.
And they're going to pitch a tent.
And it's very sad because you think to yourself, they really have nowhere else to go.
Would you say now, having been there, that it was genocide?
No.
No, absolutely not.
No.
Yes, denial is more than the name of a river in Egypt.
So, yeah, that is appalling.
To confront the reality and then to say nothing about what caused it, there was not even one mention of who dropped the nuclear bomb equivalent on Gaza.
There was no discussion of why it was sad that people were trying to get back to their homes and moving around apparently aimlessly because there was nowhere for them to go.
This just happened.
No, it didn't just happen.
It was carried out by the Israelis with strong American support, supplied by the United States with the weaponry to do it, supplied by the United States with the intelligence to murder people.
And I think treating this as a real estate development possibility is just beyond belief.
Ambassador, thank you very much.
Thanks for your time, my dear friend.
Thanks for accommodating my schedule.
It's good to be back.
It's good to be back with you.
All the best.
We'll look forward to it.
Thank you.
We'll look forward to seeing you next week, my friend.
Thank you.
If you're watching us live in five minutes, Alistair Crook at 8.30 this morning Eastern at 10 o'clock, Ray McGovern, at 11 o'clock, if we can find him in Moscow, Larry Johnson at 2 o'clock, Matt Ho.
Export Selection