Feb. 10, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:01
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Europe’s Trust in the U.S. After Epstein
Professor Glenn Diesen examines Europe’s uncritical trust in the U.S. despite Epstein revelations, citing Macron’s private praise for Middle East strikes while warning against Greenland attacks and Germany’s chancellor framing Israel’s actions as "doing our dirty work." He highlights Europe’s economic vulnerability—30,000–40,000 U.S. troops in Iran’s missile range—and NATO’s likely inaction if Article 5 isn’t triggered, given internal divisions like France-Britain disputes and Germany’s EU tensions. Doubting Russia’s portrayed threat, he contrasts U.S. hypocrisy on Iran’s nuclear program with its silence on Saudi/Pakistani proliferation, while Garland’s opaque Epstein testimony fuels European skepticism of American elites’ accountability, leaving trust in decline amid systemic corruption concerns. [Automatically generated summary]
Tragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.
What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government?
What if Jefferson was right?
What if that government is best which governs least?
What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, February 11, 2026.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor Deason, always a pleasure.
Sorry for the late start.
Thank you very much for joining us.
I want to talk to you about Europe's attitude towards the United States government after the release of these Epstein files.
But before we get there, is there any angst in Europe today, either among the populace or among the elites over what appears to be the coming regional war in the Middle East?
No, I think definitely, but a lot of the governments, of course, have suggested they are fully on board.
Keep in mind that the first time, well, last time back in June, when Israel and Iran were fighting, the German chancellor said that Israel is doing our dirty work for us.
So very clear expression of support.
Recently, you saw Donald Trump sharing this message he got, private message he got from Emmanuel Macron, which showed that he was arguing that, you know, we're all on board with what you're doing in Syria and Iran, but please don't take Greenland pretty much.
So I don't think the Europeans will oppose any attack on Iran.
If anything, I think they're happy that the focus of the U.S. president has shifted away from Europe because there seems now to be almost a new conflict every week.
So of course, after Venezuela, he went to Greenland, but now he appears to be moving on to the Middle East.
I think there's some relief going.
But if you, well, speak to academics and others, I think there's a concern that this is not going to be like the previous war.
This is going to be much, much more dangerous because the Iranians will not allow this to be a limited attack.
They will hit back.
And it appears that the United States is preparing for this by sending more military assets to the region.
And when the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, how much will it cost to fill up a tank in a car compared to what it costs now?
Yeah, this is the problem.
This is something that JD Vance pointed out when they were fighting against Yemen, which was, you know, this trade corridor, it's mostly beneficial for the Europeans.
It doesn't really affect the United States to the same extent.
But this is a key weakness of the Europeans because the economies in Europe are already stagnating.
There's a lot of deindustrialization.
There's very little optimism of how these economies can actually recover, given that they don't have the technological sovereignty, don't have the access to cheap, reliable energy.
So the future of a rebound, the prospect are quite grim.
So for this reason, another hit to the economy like this would be quite devastating.
And not just economically, but for the political leadership.
We're having not just very, very unpopular political leaders, but I would argue that we're entering a crisis of legitimacy when you have political leaders who are so unpopular that they have a need to marginalize their political opposition, marginalize dissent among the public, and leaders who are overstepping their democratic mandate.
So if the economy weakens even further, this could unleash a real crisis.
And what happens?
What will NATO do when United States assets and troops are attacked by the Iranians as a counterattack?
I mean, there are 30 or 40,000 American troops within range of Iranian missiles sitting there.
Well, the U.S. is more or less NATO.
That is in terms of military capabilities.
NATO is essentially delivering U.S. security guarantees to Europe.
But I think that the Europeans haven't really decided yet how to react to Trump.
We learned this kind of in Davos, the different approaches.
How do you deal with the United States, which increasingly threatens allies?
And the Europeans seem to still be betting on the idea, although they're learning slowly, that if they just bow a bit to Trump, try to show their own value to Trump, that somehow they might be spared, as suggested by Macron's message.
In this contrast with the position that Canada is taking, that they think it's better to push back as Trump tends to go after low-hanging fruit.
But I think that the Europeans might see it actually as an opportunity, that is, to show their support for the United States if they are in a conflict with Iran.
So if American troops are attacked, does Article 5 come into play?
Are we going to see German troops, French troops, British troops?
There's very few British troops anymore, but whatever.
Going to the aid of America, whether it's jet planes or missiles or boots on the ground or ships in the sea?
Well, it sounds unlikely, but again, everything that's happening now, there's not a normal situation anymore.
So I do think that there's a real desire to show that Europe is an important ally to the United States.
Trump has time and time again said that the Europeans do nothing for American security.
So I think it's quite clear that the U.S. loss of interest in Europe is because the Europeans aren't seen as a force amplifier.
It's seen as something that's dragging down the U.S. budget, just a cost.
So I think the Europeans would like to prove that they're not just an expenditure.
And it's worth noting that if, or not if or when NATO begins to fall apart, this could be quite problematic for the Europeans.
It's not just the U.S. providing security for Europe, but they are also the pacifier.
If the U.S. begins to pack up and leave, I think it's quite predictable that the Europeans won't come together, you know, finally stand up without the United States.
I think they will begin to fragment and very quickly turn a bit against each other.
Not open warfare or something like this, but just squabble, economic disagreements.
And we've already seen this.
simple questions such as where do we source and where do we develop our weapons the french are disagreeing with the with the the british the germans are disagreeing with the eu so it's very easy to to begin to to fragment europe as soon as the americans leave so i think you want to keep nato alive at any cost do these european leader leaders still share their primordial fear of a russian invasion Well,
it's hard to say if they're genuine or not, because it doesn't really make any sense.
If they really thought that Russia is prepared to invade, then surely they would have done something about converting into some kind of war industry or preparing more than they have.
But they haven't.
And it's hard to say.
The media picture is essentially always this contradiction.
On one hand, the Russians are portrayed as being backwards and hopeless, weak.
They can't even take any significant Ukrainian regions.
But on the other hand, they're also pointing out that the Russians are overwhelming threat to Europe.
They can conquer at any time.
They portray them as fighting with shovels and eating each other, eating pigeons.
Well, at the same time, they're also suggesting that the Russians are that they have this overwhelming strength.
And so it is always both extremes, sometimes at the same time.
They portray the Russians as fighting with shovels and eating pigeons?
Oh, this was in the newspaper now.
You've had, well, it seems like an upgrade because two weeks ago, there were newspaper articles that they didn't have any access to food.
So the soldiers were eating each other, apparently.
And this week they're eating pigeons.
You have the BBC reporting that the Russians are running out of ammunition, so they're fighting with shovels.
You had the von der Leyen arguing that the Russians were stealing computer chips out of washing machines because they didn't have anything to put in their missiles.
I mean, it's a common trait.
You want to portray the adversary as being hopelessly weak.
In other words, we can defeat them.
And we have to defeat them because they're so overwhelmingly powerful that they can conquer us at any time.
So you end up with this very inconsistent and ludicrous narrative.
So again, I'm not sure if they actually believe what they're saying.
But there is, I would almost define it as a mass psychosis at the moment across Europe, at least among the political elites, the hatred of Russia, the narrative, the assumption that the Russians will come for us, invade any time.
It's never explained why.
It's just the assumption that that's what the Russians would do.
That's just conquering other countries.
Well.
To Iran for a minute before we get to the Sepstein stuff.
In your view, does Iran pose any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States of America?
Well, I don't think there's any country in the world with any common sense that wants to go into a war with the United States.
I think one can have legitimate concerns about, for example, Iranian nuclear program, that they shouldn't develop nuclear weapons, as this would cause a round of nuclear weapons spreading across the region.
But that being said, we've seen time and time again that the Iranians are willing to make a deal.
They have made a deal in the past on transparency around their nuclear program.
But the United States is now arguing that they can't even have nuclear power for civilian use.
But this goes against the non-proliferation treaty.
If you sign it, you don't get nuclear weapons, but you get nuclear energy.
In addition, the United States seems to be linking the nuclear issue to limitations on ballistic missiles.
That is what the conventional missiles, which the Iranians need for deterrence, and they also have to give up their partnership with other countries in the region.
So in other words, they have to leave themselves completely vulnerable and exposed with the security dependent on the benign intentions of the United States and Israel.
So if they wanted this nuclear issue, they could isolate it and deal with that alone.
But that's what they don't want to do.
So I'm also a bit critical of the assumption. that Iran is this threat to the United States because, well, I think they're engaged in a security competition at some level, but there's no capabilities of the Iranians to attack the United States, and there surely aren't any intentions either.
And that's usually how you assess a threat by capabilities and intentions.
So in the American rationale or in the Trump rationale, and I guess I shouldn't blame Trump.
This has been the American rationale for 75 years.
Iran, which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is not permitted to have nuclear weapons.
Israel, which has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, is permitted to have nuclear weapons.
How could any moral or rational person justify those two positions?
Well, if you would have a rational argument why Iran, which has signed it, isn't even allowed to have civilian nuclear energy, while Israel can have nuclear weapons.
Of course, it's very hard to make this argument, but we see that the arguments being made usually aren't really based on reason.
They're usually framed in this extreme narrative of good versus evil.
That is, you know, Israel just wants to defend itself.
It's living in a dangerous neighborhood.
Everyone wants to exterminate them.
Meanwhile, Iran is just these crazy Ayatollahs radicals who just wants to wipe everyone off the map.
So once you buy into that premise, then you can argue, well, surely the Iranians can't have nuclear weapons because they will burn the world while Israel just wants to defend itself.
It's not that different from how we paint all conflicts, to be honest.
All right.
So take a look.
We're going to run two clips.
One is the vice president being interviewed by Megan Kelly, in which he makes extreme statements like, you know, the Iranians are going to shoot up shopping malls or drive airplanes into buildings and we can't trust them with a nuclear weapon.
There's no logic there.
Second part of this is a Fox interview involving David Asman and a now deceased very senior member of the CIA whose revelation may surprise you or you may already know this.
Chris, cut number six.
What happens when the same people who are shooting up a mall or driving airplanes into buildings have a nuclear weapon?
That is unacceptable.
And it's not just them, because if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, you know who gets a nuclear weapon like the next day?
The Saudi Arabians.
People, Mr. Claridge, have talked about Saudi Arabia.
They certainly have more money than anybody in the Middle East.
Are you concerned about the possibility they may get a nuclear bomb?
Saudis And Nuclear Weapons00:02:11
Saudis already have the bomb, but people fail to remember.
Hold on a second, Mr. Clare.
Let me just emphasize that point because that's an important point.
You say Saudi Arabia already has a nuclear bomb?
Several.
People forget that it was the Saudis who financed the Pakistani bomb.
They put billions of dollars into that effort to create that nuclear capability.
And in return, of course, they did something.
Now, people can argue whether it was dibs on four nuclear devices or seven.
That's the argument.
But no one really in the know argues that they do have access to nuclear weapons.
So this is Ray McGovern's former colleague, Larry Johnson's former boss, John Kiriaku's former boss.
They all vouch for what he says.
Are you surprised to hear this?
Do you believe that today the Saudis have nuclear weapons and they haven't signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty either?
Well, I have no evidence basis except for these statements being made.
It's not improbable.
Again, it's quite possible that they do have a bomb or several.
But again, this is a key problem we're going to see now as the world order shifts dramatically.
Again, Turkey might also acquire nuclear weapons if they acquire it, and Iran might acquire one as well, especially after the attack in June and the current threats.
They might need a deterrent as well.
You see the same in Europe.
The Germans want nuclear sharing with either the French or the British.
So there's a lot of instability waiting.
And once some countries begin to cross this line, then security for one is insecurity for another.
So you're going to have proliferation being a key problem.
Here's what's going on in the United States as we speak.
Back And Forth On Transparency00:07:08
Members of Congress interrogating the Attorney General on all the materials she did not release.
She released over 3 million pages with thousands of references to President Trump, but she didn't release a lot of things that we already knew about.
This is Congressman Thomas Massey, who's one of the two originators of the legislation, the Epstein Transparency Act.
He's extremely knowledgeable about what's in the files there.
He's the Ron Paul of the House of Representatives today, the most libertarian member there.
He often votes against big government, whether it's a Republican proposal or not.
Now he's going after the Attorney General.
It gets a little flamboyant.
Watch this.
Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question.
Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.
Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.
Red-handed.
There was one redaction.
Where he's listed as a coach.
And we invited you in.
This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.
He needs to get.
You're a failed politician.
He needs your money.
Mr. Chairman, please restore his time and remind the witnesses.
There is no credible information.
None.
If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals.
Is that your position as well?
My position is any victim who comes forward, of course, we would love to hear from them.
1-800 call FBI.
Did you ask Merritt Garland that the last four years?
Did you talk about Epstein?
I am reclaiming my time.
I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland.
You're going to reclaim time.
This is bigger than Watergate.
This goes over four administrations.
You don't have to go back to Biden.
Let's go back to Obama.
Let's go back to George Bush.
This cover-up spans decades, and you are responsible for this portion of it.
How does this play in Europe?
Well, I think that there's some skepticism there towards the I guess, lack of reaction because, as you know, Trumpy referred to this Epstein files as a hoax for a while.
Uh, there's been some indications that there have been efforts of delaying it.
Uh, the delaying tactics.
There's also some comments on why all of these names are redacted uh, but also um yeah, overall that there hasn't been uh, that many, uh that many consequences yet many people being held accountable.
Now, that's not to say that the Europeans are are doing all of this perfectly but um, but there is, I think there is some concern about the, the lack of open, openness because uh traditionally, the United States have, you know, aired out its mistakes in order to clean out the system.
But we see something well different here, that um that yeah, that elites are protecting each other, and because we don't know whose names are, all of the names who appear in these documents, we don't know if the people uh have to, are essentially tasked to investigate themselves.
Now my, there's a similar problem in Europe, but there seems to have been a bit more uh yeah, reaction.
People have had to step down, some investigations have begun, so we haven't seen it to the same extent in the U.s.
And I think some of the political media establishment has reacted to this.
Here's uh more back and forth involving this attorney general.
She likes to make political comments and attack the questioners rather than give answers.
She is the least sophisticated lawyer to be attorney general of the United States in my memory.
I'm not commenting on her politics.
I'm commenting on her comportment, her respect for the system and her understanding of the law, all of which are very poor Chris, number 15.
Madam attorney general, you acknowledged earlier to mr Johnson that president Trump was mentioned and the release countless times, you said, in the Epstein files.
I just want to play a video though, for you.
That I think, speaks to the frustration that many of these victims have of times Trump's name appears in the files, so it could at least be a thousand times.
Is that right?
The number is a total misleading factor.
We have not released anyone's name.
We have not released anyone's name in the Epstein files.
That has not been credible.
Director, could it have released every piece of legally permissible information?
Okay, you can characterize the numbers however you want it.
Claiming my time director, it sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times, which it's not.
Is it at least 500 times?
No, is it at least a hundred times?
No, then what's the number?
I don't know the number.
I understand why the victims are frustrated and the attorney general acknowledged what mr Patel would not acknowledge, that it was way more than a thousand times.
Does that damage the ability of European leaders to put trust in the word of Donald Trump?
Well, it is problematic that there's not more transparency around Trump's involvement in this.
And as you saw from the previous clip, the reactions from Pam Bondi that is just going after the person that is attacked, you have a Trump derangement syndrome, you're a failed politician.
All of this doesn't answer the question.
And again, it is deeply problematic that the president of the United States have had this connection.
So usually what you do in a situation like this, have some transparency.
That being said, the amount of time, as the FBI director suggested, doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.
I mean, this is the talking point they have in Europe about Russia, because in Europe, there's an effort, much a bit like in the US, but I think more so in Europe to Russia gate the whole thing, that is to portray it as a Russian conspiracy, even though this makes no sense at all.
But then they usually point out that Putin is mentioned a thousand times as well.
But if you go into it, it's newspaper articles, which Epstein has shared.
So it doesn't have to mean anything how many times there's no actual incriminating information coming out in any of them.
But again, with Trump, I think the relationship has proven to be a bit more problematic.
So I think many of the Europeans, for good reason, would like to see more transparency here and are concerned that this is not happening.
European Legislatures Question Transparency00:01:25
You're such a gentleman.
By the way, do they have hearings like this in European legislatures?
Is it the same?
Is it more civilized or is it even worse?
Well, the language is a bit unusual, but there have been efforts to, well, a lot of people would have to have had open investigations against them.
Again, it's mainly been countries like the United Kingdom, France, Norway.
These countries, we've seen a lot of officials pop up in these documents.
And, you know, it remains to be seen whether or not the government will just try to isolate into these unique cases or if they're going to look for the wider pattern of corruption.
But at least in this country, in Norway, there's been a lot of top politicians which have been proven to have very close relations with Epstein, which has then involved corruption.
And so this is deeply problematic as well.
Professor Deesen, thank you very much.
I know you're traveling to New York next week, and I look forward to seeing you here.
All the best to you, my dear friend.
Thanks, Judge.
I look forward to it.
Thank you.
Coming up later today at two o'clock this afternoon, Scott Ritter.