Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: Legacy Media and Europe

Episode Date: February 19, 2025

Aaron Maté: Legacy Media and EuropeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, February 19th, 2025. Aaron Maté will be here in just a minute on legacy media and how they treat Europe. And of course, a little about Ukraine and the Middle East as well. But first this.

Did you know that American homeowners have over $32 trillion in equity and criminals are targeting it with a growing scam the FBI calls house stealing? Scammers can transfer your title out of your name using a one-page document they can file behind your back with the government. And the scariest part? You won't even find out about it until collection notices and foreclosure notices start arriving. The best way to protect your equity is with Home Title Lock's exclusive million-dollar triple lock protection. This service offers 24-7 monitoring, urgent alerts, and if fraud should occur, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to undo the fraud and restore your title. So when was the last time you checked your title?

If you're like me, the answer is never. That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock. When you go to HomeTitleLock.com, promo code JUDGE, you'll get 30 days of free protection and a free title history report to lock in your peace of mind do it today go to home title lock.com promo code judge all right welcome here uh before we get into what i know you have been um communicating about this week and a lot of us are concerned about the lame way that the American or Western press treats Europe, but did want to ask some questions about the latest events, particularly words out of the mouth of President Trump when he said yesterday that Kiev started the war against Russia. What do you think? I mean, you and I

and everybody watching us now fervently believe this, but for Donald Trump to say it is profound, is it not? And at the same time, he's got a team communicating with the Russians in Riyadh. This is a major reversal of what we've been used to. It's been bipartisan policy for decades to basically fault Russia for everything in terms of the tensions between the U.S. and Russia, whether it's Ukraine or other issues. And now Trump is saying, actually, no,

the story is not what we've been told. And when he's saying that Ukraine started this war, he didn't specify. But if you want to date back to the start of this war, you could if you want to look at when Russia invaded and pretend the history started there. But for people who actually care about context, history, being scrupulous with the facts,

this really dates back to 2014 when there was a coup that the U.S. backed, a government that was overthrown with U.S. support. And then after that, a war began with U.S. encouragement when people in the east of Ukraine rebelled against that coup. That's when I think this war began. And that's what I assume, although I don't know for sure that Trump was referring to. And certainly whoever started it, this war could have been for sure, that Trump was referring to. And certainly, whoever started it, this war could have been resolved. And that's also what Trump has said, is that Zelensky let this war happen when he ignored the Minsk Accords prior to Russia's invasion. And then

when he walked away from the deal that his own negotiators brokered with Russian counterparts in early 2022. So yes, this is causing obviously huge outrage inside NATO states and NATO state media, because everybody has been in lockstep and basically ignoring the factual context that those of us who've been in the margins have been pointing out for a very long time. So it's just unprecedented that now you have the president of the United States acknowledging a fact that has been buried for so long. Here's how popular you are with our viewers. One of them writes, Aaron, you should be so proud. Your insight was a factor that led to this change in U.S. policy.

I don't know about that. I can't take credit for that. But what I do know is that those of us who cared about not just buying into soundbites, it's very easy just to buy the line, you know, Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked. A lot of people went along with that. But, you know, a job of a journalist is to follow the facts. And that's what we tried to do. I wonder how Victoria Nuland is feeling as we speak. Let me comment on that, Judge, because Victoria Nuland is very important. People are forgetting here that there's a consequence when you weaponize the government to go after a major political candidate turned president and frame him as a Russian agent.

And Ukraine, unfortunately, because of people like Victoria Nuland, got caught up in this. Recall, it was Victoria Nuland who first authorized the FBI to go meet with Christopher Steele to receive the so-called Steele dossier, a collection of Clinton campaign-funded conspiracy theories framing Trump as a Russian agent. Victoria Nuland and other colleagues in the Obama and then Biden White House then used Ukraine to push this conspiracy theory about Trump being a Russian agent. In early 2016, Ukrainian officials met with people from the DNC to try to advance the conspiracy theory that Trump and Russia were in cahoots. That led to Ukrainian officials, including one official who now serves as an advisor to Zelensky,

leaking the so-called secret ledger showing that Paul Manafort had received all these illicit payments, which were likely a forgery. And these Ukrainian officials admitted they were trying to interfere in the election to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Donald Trump. John Brennan later revealed that Ukrainian intelligence officers were used to help frame Russia for hacking the DNC. So you have this use by one wing of the political establishment, the Democrats, of Ukraine, not only as a proxy through which they could bleed Russia, but to go after their political opponent. And unfortunately for them and for Ukraine, which took sides in this, that political opponent is now the president of the United States, and he is basically paying them back for what they did. So this is not just about geopolitics. This is also partisan politics.

And unfortunately, Ukraine was used in a really cynical way for that, and now they're paying the price. Here's what that political opponent said earlier today about President Zelensky and Ukraine. He said it on Truth Social, so Chris will put it up on the full screen and I'll read it. Think of it. A modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, talked the United States of America into spending $350 billion

to go into a war that couldn't be won, that never had to start, but a war that he, without the U.S. and Trump, will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 billion more than Europe and Europe's money is guaranteed while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn't sleepy Joe Biden demand equalization in this war, in that this war is far more important to Europe than it is to us? We have a big, beautiful ocean of separation. On top of this, Zelensky admits that half of the money we sent to him is, in caps and quotes, missing. He refuses to have elections. He is very low in Ukrainian polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle.

A dictator without elections. Zelensky better move fast or he's not going to have a country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end of the war with Russia, something all admit only Trump and the Trump administration can do. Biden never tried. Europe has failed to bring peace, and Zelensky probably wants to keep the gravy train going. I love Ukraine. But Zelensky has done a terrible job. His country is shattered, and millions have unnecessarily died.

And so it continues. President Trump, pretty articulate, pretty eloquent. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. He says a lot there. Now, I can't speak to the exact dollar figure he gives of $350 billion. I don't know where he got that number from. There's the official toll of around $175 billion.

But then who knows how much money has been spent covertly through CIA and USAID and other conduits. So who knows? But the point is, it's a lot of money. And Trump is right that Zelensky recently admitted that he only received half of it, that the rest of it is missing. So in terms of the missing part, that is correct. But look, Trump is missing some context here in which he's forgetting about his own rule. Because yes, Zelensky could have avoided all this. And yes, this was provoked and prolonged by Biden, who deserves all the criticism in the world. But Trump was president for four years, from 2016 onwards. And Trump back then could have done more to stop this war and the war that was ongoing and prevent the invasion

that later happened. And he did his part in fueling tensions with Russia by tearing up the INF Treaty at the behest of John Bolton, by sending weapons to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't even send, and by not using U.S. leverage to stand behind Zelensky and get him to implement the Minsk Accords, which could have avoided all of this. Now, in Trump's defense, he was targeted with one of the biggest disinformation campaigns in history, which was Russiagate, in which he was framed as a Russian agent. That made it very difficult for him to use the power of the presidency to engage in diplomacy with matter what kind of pressure he was under to do it, did help contribute to this war. How, I'm transitioning to Riyadh. Sergey Lavrov was to mention in his opening statement that United States, while looking at Whitcoff, that United States businesses have lost $330 billion in income due to the Joe Biden sanctions, which the Trump administration has continued in place.

Well, I agree with the general point that this U.S. policy of trying to cut off one of the world's largest and most powerful countries has been a disaster for everybody. When you insist on crushing the economy of a major power like Russia, you will do damage to everybody. Certainly for Europeans, it's raised gas prices. And we can also thank Joe Biden's destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines for that as well. Even though Biden hasn't admitted to it, it's pretty obvious that that's who was behind it. And certainly I'm sure that U.S. corporations in cutting themselves off from the Russian market under Biden's orders have lost a lot of money too. And it speaks to this fallacy that the US government has about respecting the free market when the US is constantly interviewing, intervening in economies for its own imperial ends. And so this effort to weaken Russia, and as Biden blurted out loud, to regime change Russia, because remember when Biden said early on after Russia invaded,

for God's sake, this man cannot remain in power. That was Biden admitting that his goal was regime change. So when you try to do that to a major power like Russia, everybody is going to pay the price. You think, taking a step back, Trump understands the role of the CIA in the 2014 coup and the role of the Obama State Department in that coup? He definitely understands the role of the State Department because he knows who was populated in the State Department. That was Victoria Nuland. And he knows who Victoria Nuland is, someone who, in his own personal case, was taking

part in the plot to frame him as a Russian agent. Right, right. She testified against him she did and she's admitted to spending a lot of money on ukraine especially something like five billion dollars to help spread democracy to ukraine which means to help destabilize the country and put it into the uh u.s orbit so i'm not sure what his level of awareness is he he made a statement last year or the year before basically saying that the State Department had helped incite the Maidan coup. So he seems to be aware of that. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's aware of the CIA rule too. Certainly the fact that John Brennan

was so actively involved in Ukraine when he was head of the CIA and John Brennan was also actively involved in the plot to frame Trump as a Russian conspirator. I'm sure Trump can put these dots together. I'm going to go back to Riyadh. I want you to comment on this, Aaron. Here's Foreign Minister Lavrov. He's so articulate saying what he thinks about Donald Trump, which is something that I'm sure pleased the president. Chris, cut number 16. Regarding President Trump's statements, you mentioned NATO expansion. He was the first, and as far as I know, still the only Western leader to publicly and loudly state that one of the root causes of the Ukraine situation was the push to bring Ukraine into NATO. No other Western leader has ever said this, but he has expressed this view multiple times. I base this on our conversation yesterday with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor.

We were there with Yuri Ushakov. They are interested in removing artificial obstacles to potentially very promising and mutually beneficial projects. We have begun stepping back from the brink to which our relations were pushed by the Biden administration. But these are only the first steps. The atmosphere is positive and the intentions are good. We will see how the situation develops and what steps will be taken next. I misspoke. That was obviously today back in Russia. That was not yesterday in Riyadh.

But you get the message of what he's saying yeah i'd only correct him on one count i don't think trump is the only western leader to link the war to nato expansion jen stoltenberg who was the previous leader of nato until recently he said that the reason russia went to war was to prevent more NATO on its borders. Now, of course, Stoltenberg- Well, we're smiling because that's against his own interest to say it, but he did say it. Yeah, exactly. Stoltenberg wasn't being critical of NATO in the way Trump was, but Stoltenberg did admit it. And yes, but Lavrov's right that Trump is the only Western leader to criticize this drive to include Ukraine in NATO, which so many top officials warned from the start would be a disaster.

Among them was William Burns, the director of Biden's CIA. Back in the late 90s, you had a number of people, people like George Kennan, who were warning that expanding NATO eastward would lead to war. And all that's been forgotten ever since the Bush administration under, you know, Bush and Dick Cheney ignored everybody and pushed through this promise to Ukraine and Georgia, including their own advisors, by the way, including Fiona Hill were actually against this,

which everyone seems to have forgotten. And the Obama administration picked up the baton and kept on with that. And the Biden administration was so devoted to the bush cheney uh goal of bringing ukraine to nato that when russia put out proposals shortly before invading in a bid to resolve this crisis biden refused refused to even discuss it actually that's how devoted biden was to provoking Russia. He refused to even discuss the issue of the invitation by NATO to Ukraine. So Trump is right to call this out. And again, looking historically at Ukrainian public opinion, first of all, Ukraine's own declaration of state sovereignty said that Ukraine desires to be a neutral country.

That's what public opinion also said for years and years and years. At the time when Bush promised NATO to Ukraine most ukrainians didn't even want it but yet the u.s has continued with this policy so strenuously that they even helped overthrow yanukovych precisely because he was pledging to stick to ukrainian public opinion and its own state sovereignty declaration and pledge neutrality. So therefore, he had to go. Would you share with us, please, your criticism of the treatment by legacy media of the elites in Western Europe? My criticism of legacy, but I'm sorry, Judge. I love the New York times and, and, and big media in the West. Well, the New York times recently had this really funny line. Uh, they were covering JD Vance's speech in Munich.

And I have my own criticisms of JD Vance's speech because he's lecturing Europe about free, about their crackdown on free speech, but he doesn't mention their crackdown on the free speech of pro Palestine speech, which to me is the most egregious crackdown of free speech that there is. And J.D. Vance didn't fault them for that. But the New York Times is criticizing J.D. Vance for a different reason. They criticize him for taking to task Romania, because Romania recently canceled an entire presidential election on the grounds that there was Russian interference. So that's what the Times is chiding Vance for, for making that criticism against Romania.

And the Times says that Vance made this criticism despite clear evidence that Russia manipulated the Romanian election. OK, so according to the New York Times, there's clear evidence, their words. And what was it? Well, so there's clear evidence, according to The Times, that Russia interfered in the remaining election. And so what do you learn when you click on the New York Times link that they attach to that sentence alleging clear evidence of Russian interference? It's another New York Times article. And in that New York Times article, the Times admits

that Romania released no evidence of Russian interference. Therefore, according to the New York Times editorial standards, if you're accusing Russia of interference, clear evidence can equal no evidence. Unbelievable. How wise were Rubio and Lavrov, I guess really Trump and Putin, to exclude Europe and Zelensky from these meetings? Well, what they're underscoring is that both Ukraine and Europe are just proxies, and they've been in lockstep with the U.S., and they've been doing the U.S.'s bidding, and they were never the real players here.

I mean, that's what I've been arguing all along. This was a proxy war between the U.S.'s bidding, and they were never the real players here. I mean, that's what I've been arguing all along. This was a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in which Ukraine was just being used. And the fact that the U.S. now refuses to give Zelensky a seat at the table since he's been deemed expendable just underscores that. And what can Europe do? They're talking about sending – Kirsten Armour of the U of the UK is talking about sending troops to Ukraine. That's ridiculous. But no one takes it seriously.

I believe there's a clip even of Lavrov laughing at a question about this because it's a joke because everyone knows that the UK doesn't have the military capacity to make any difference at all against Russia. He'd just be inviting real damage to his own country. So this has been all along about Europe and Ukraine going along with this U.S. desire to expand its hegemony into Ukraine. And finally, Trump has come into office with a different agenda. And as soon as he changes U.S. policy, everyone is left scrambling for relevance, which they don't have anymore. Switching gears, last topic. Is Netanyahu going to dispatch negotiators to negotiate seriously for phase two, or is he looking for an excuse to restart the slaughter in Gaza? That's a great question. On the one hand, I don't think Netanyahu sees his genocide in Gaza as finished business.

There are still Palestinians there. And Israel wants to displace as many Palestinians as possible. And Palestinians are so resilient that Israel resents these scenes of Palestinians returning to the rubble of their homes and insisting on rebuilding. Because Israel just has such contempt for people that refuse to lose the connection to their land, which Israel has been trying to expel them from since 1948. In fact, earlier than that. So there's that.

But also Netanyahu does not want to face another situation where he's mired in a war that he doesn't know how to end. And it's true that while he succeeded in destroying much of Gaza, he hasn't wiped out Hamas. Hamas is still there. And he knows that if he sends back Israeli troops, that they will get killed. And that will create problems for him, too. So he's caught. I suspect what he wants is a U.S. green light to continue carrying out bombings

of Gaza when he wants, so he doesn't have to go all the way with a full-on ground invasion. But he's in a pickle because there are still captives that have yet to be released, and he will continue to face protests if he returns to his policy of prolonging the fighting rather than seeing those captives return home. Why did he rip into recently the head of Shin Bet and the head of Mossad? I apologize. I didn't catch that. But I suspect it has to do with he's been reminded by so many top officials that he could bring all the hostages home if he wanted to. He's had so many opportunities to do that. His former defense minister, Yoav Galant, recently said that we could have

had the same deal back many, many months ago that we have now. These Israeli security officials know that it's Netanyahu that's been standing in the way of a deal that could free all the hostages rather than keep them trapped inside Gaza.

Aaron Mate, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for your insight. Always, always helpful. Always adding to the mix. Much appreciated. I hope we can see you again next week. Absolutely. Thank you, Josh. Of course. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon, Phil Giraldi at four o'clock. Always worth waiting for. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.