Judging Freedom - Ask The Judge: Viewer Questions

Episode Date: February 23, 2024

Ask The Judge: Viewer QuestionsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, February 23rd, 2024. It's Ask the Judge. So it's you and me and your questions between us. I'll do my best to answer them. So we have selected what we think.

I did not do the selection. My wonderful team did. Challenging questions, and we'll just bang them out until we all think we've had enough. So let's start with the first one, Chris and Sonia. From Summer Hassan, could Anthony Blinken be tried for lying about the imminent threat to the U.S. to justify arms sales to Israel? If so, what would the punishment be? A very good question. The short answer is yes. The longer answer, it's unlikely that he would be. So what the Secretary of State did was to sign two documents, each under penalty of perjury. So he

swore that they were true. And each document said it is a national security emergency for the United States. Key phrases, national security of the United States and emergency, which requires us to bypass Congress and spend money that hasn't been authorized to aid the Israelis in their fight against the Gazans. He would be hard pressed if indicted for perjury, for lying under oath, to explain to a court that this was an American national security matter and that it was an emergency. It's unlikely that he would be prosecuted. It would have to be done by the Biden Department of Justice or by a subsequent Department of Justice. The statute of limitations is five years. The penalty is five years for each lie. So he would be facing 10 years in jail. The government rarely

prosecutes executive officers for doing this, but in my view, it should. Great question. From Sabine S., dear judge, what does it say on the yellow flag right at the beginning of your videos. It says, don't tread on me. It's called the Gadsden flag. And though it was used at the time of the American Revolution, basically saying to British soldiers, don't tread on me, it became very popular right before the Civil War when the United States purchased some land from Mexico called the Gadsden Purchase, named after the person that engineered the purchase. So even though the flag precedes that acquisition of land, by about 80 years, it got its name from the person that engineered that acquisition. If you're a libertarian, particularly a young libertarian, younger than I am, then you know that this is one of the favorite flags of the libertarian movement.

So today it stands for leave me alone, don't bother me, shrink yourself, government, shrink yourself down to the confines of the Constitution. From Joden 80, who pays $10 for my answer. God bless you, Jody. What happens to Julian if he wins all his appeals? Does he get to walk free in the UK? Does he get to go home to Australia? Or is he stuck in a UK prison forever? Great question. He is not charged with any crime by the UK. He's not charged with any crime by any country other than the US. So if he wins his appeals, that means there is no extradition. That means there would be no basis to confine him. That means he's free. He can live in the UK if he wants. I doubt he would want to after what they did to him.

But of course, he can go to Australia. He can go anywhere but the United States while the arrest warrant is still outstanding for him. The UK has said it would give him sanction and many other countries would give him sanction. We do have an extradition treaty with Australia. He could conceivably go to Australia and then the government could change and that government could decide to extradite him. He'd be much safer going to a country with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. That's one side of this. The other side of it is, look, I thought I had talked President Trump into pardoning him. At the end of the conversation that I had with the then president, I thought he was going to sign that pardon. I believe the pardon was him. At the end of the conversation that I had with the then president, I thought

he was going to sign that pardon. I believe the pardon was prepared. He was talked out of signing it. He could be elected in 2024. He could decide to pardon Julian. That, of course, would stop the prosecution, would repeal the indictment. He'd be free to go anywhere. In the U.S., he'd be free to go anywhere in the world. From Curious Person, another $10. Thank you for your donations, by the way. U.S. policy is dominated by big money buying members of Congress and maybe others in government. Is money a form of speech? Should money have a role in influencing politics? How do we stop it? A case called Citizens United, an opinion by Justice Alito, says that money is speech. So as long as Citizens United is the law, there's no way to stop it. So you could take out a full

page ad in the New York Times and encourage members of Congress to vote the way you want them to. That's your free speech. You could also put together a group that awards members of Congress money to their campaigns if they vote the way you want them to. And you could put together a group that threatens members of Congress by funding their opponents' campaigns if they don't vote the way you want them to. The latter two, reward the way they vote and punish them if they don't vote the way you want, is what AIPAC does. AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, I'm not exactly sure I have exactly what each letter in AIPAC stands for. It's an acronym. I think it's American-Israeli Political Action Committee. I think that's what it stands for. It's actually

a foreign lobbying group because it's lobbying on behalf of a foreign country, but it's not regulated by the Department of Justice and it doesn't have to report to the Department of Justice. It's the only foreign agent lobbying for a foreign government that is not regulated by the DOJ. Another issue for another time. They've done it very successfully. Somebody else could do it as well. From No Toes, interesting moniker. Hi, Judge. Great work you're doing. Thank you. My question is, is there enough time for the diplomatic process to play out to stop Israel before the surrounding populations become so inflamed as to react? I don't think so. I don't think the diplomatic process will stop Israel. Joe Biden could stop Israel with a phone call. No more spare parts,

no more ammunition, no more bombs. Stop it, Bibi, or we won't be behind you. He could do that today. He could do that while we're on air right now, but he doesn't want to, for reasons best known only to him. Unless he does that, or unless the Israelis are stopped militarily, it appears that nothing will stop them. Next question, Chris. Here we go. Patrick, John Claude. Patrick, I haven't read your question yet, but Joey's right. Great ones. Here we go. Judge, Supreme Court sided with the federal government to remove razor wire put in place by Texas along the Rio Grande border. Does Texas have the right to defend its borders? Thanks and Godspeed. In my view, Texas does. And my view is based on the Constitution. If you read the

Constitution, the federal government is one of limited powers. It can only do what the Constitution says it can do. So when it comes to immigration, the Constitution says the federal government shall regulate naturalization, who becomes a citizen. The states regulate immigration, but the federal government just grabbed to itself from out of thin air the regulation regulation of immigration and the Supreme Court allowed it to do so. So when the feds and the states clash, if it's an area where the Constitution is silent, the states should win. If it's an area where the Constitution or the Supreme Court or history has given the power to the federal government, the federal government will win. So the federal government almost always wins on immigration because of an 1886 opinion saying, well, even though the Constitution doesn't mention it, of course, the federal government can control the borders.

As for me, I would rather Greg Abbott were controlling the borders than Joe Biden. From Beatrice Cannavale, Judge, I'm new to judging freedom. I watch every day. I learn so much. Thank you. I'm so happy. Which of your books should I read? I read Constitutional Chaos so far. You are so wonderful. Grazie mille, which means a thousand thanks. what each means, what the original meaning of the language was, and how that language has been twisted and contorted by the Congress and by the courts and by weakness on the part of the states to allow the federal government to trample individual liberties and to trample the sovereignty of the states. I have 10 books. If you want to read a treatise, my legal treatise, which is my most recent book, is Freedom's Anchor, an Introduction to Natural Law Jurisprudence in American Constitutional History. It's a doorstop. It's 500 pages long and 2,000 footnotes, but it's a history of the Supreme Court of the United States from the perspective of natural law, which teaches that our rights come from our humanity, not from the government. So this treatise examines every major Supreme Court opinion that expressly rejected natural rights or expressly rejected natural rights. Sadly, today, there is very little jurisprudence remaining that accepts natural rights. Sadly, today, there is very little jurisprudence remaining that accepts

natural rights. Sadly, today, law is force. It's whatever the government says, and natural law, God-given rights, have very little effect in the government today. day. Salente Mode Mimic. Okay. Terry versus Ohio 1968. Does it need to be overturned? No, it shouldn't be overturned. If Terry versus Ohio is an interesting criminal law opinion, which says that if the police break the law in order to get evidence against you, it can't be used against you. That was the law for many years in federal court. Terry versus Ohio imposed that rule on the states as well. Without Terry versus Ohio, the police would be even more authoritarian than they are today. Jay Savage, $9.99. Thank you, Mr. Savage. Judge, could you please post the clip of the excellent speech where you explain free speech and the importance of timing in determining the speech being hate speech, speech given the other

side time to refute? I'm not sure which clip you mean, but I think you are referring to Brandenburg versus Ohio, a unanimous Supreme Court opinion, which says the following, all innocuous speech is absolutely protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to neutralize it. So if I'm in front of an audience and they have pitchforks and Hillary Clinton walks by and I go, there she is, let's get her. And the audience goes after her with the pitchforks. My speech is not protected because there was no time for me to refute the, there she is, let's get her. But if there is time for somebody to say, what are you, crazy?

What do you mean, let's get her? Let's talk this out. Then my speech is protected. That's Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's a unanimous 1969 opinion. It is the modern iteration of the limits of the First Amendment, which is basically limitless because it protects hate speech and it protects obscene speech as long as there is time to neutralize it. Judge Knapp, for all you do. How are you holding up as judge? Holding up. I'm holding up well. Thank you. Judge, as a viewer from the beginning, I can see the Gaza genocide is weighing heavy on your shoulders. How do you keep optimistic with all of it? It's difficult. That's an interesting

kind of personal question, but I will answer it. It's difficult to stay optimistic. One of the ways I stay optimistic is by doing a lot of reading. I'm in my library now. There are 5,000 books here, and I read about seven at a time. So before I go to bed at night, I read about 15 minutes from each book. Then I go to bed. And the reading stimulates me and uplifts me. I also have, as you know, great, great guests who succeed in explaining to great viewers what the problems are in the world and how we can solve them. Am I optimistic? I am not. I am not optimistic that Netanyahu will be stopped. I am not optimistic that the war in Ukraine will stop. I am not optimistic that the federal government will be restrained. I predict dark times ahead. I don't know if they'll happen in my lifetime, but they'll happen in the lifetimes of

the grandchildren of the good people that are watching us now. I don't see Mala's question. Here we go. Mona Nazarala. How does USA get away with funding Israel when they are a nuclear state? Isn't that against the Constitution? Great question, Mona. It's against federal law for the United States to fund another nuclear country without that country complying with the nuclear standards established by the various treaties, including the United Nations. So the United States lies. Oh, where'd that come from? They've been lying for hundreds of years, but the United States government lies and pretends Israel does not have nuclear weapons. Every senior official in the United States government, in the White House, in the State Department, the United States government, in the White House,

in the State Department, in the Defense Department, in the Justice Department, in the CIA, knows that Israel has nuclear weapons, and they all lie about it. Because if they didn't, then that federal law would come into play. And then somebody, either some intellectually honest person like Congressman Thomas Massey in the House or Senator Rand Paul in the Senate, or maybe the right case filed before the right federal judge would force the federal government to obey the laws that it has enacted. Why does the federal government lie about whether or not Israel has atomic weapons? Because of the Israeli lobby. No question about it. From MLK3, efforts to sue Biden for genocide in federal court Oakland,

California were defeated by the political question doctrine. Could a similar legal action be taken against U.S. weapons contractors leading to success? So the political question doctrine is a judge-created doctrine which allows the judiciary to refuse to rule on a case by saying this is for one of the other two branches. This is a political question. How high should taxes be? Should we be fighting this war? Should we be aiding this ally? Should we be resisting this enemy? The courts will say, that's not for us to decide. If you don't like the way the government is doing it, impeach the president, vote for a new president, vote for a new House of Representatives in two

years, vote for new senators when your senators are up for a reelection or there's a vacancy in the Senate seat in the state in which you live. Sometimes it's a cop-out. It just allows judges not to touch hot potatoes. Could there be an action against the arms suppliers? I don't think so, because those are valid contracts in which the government enters. There's a clause in the Constitution called the Contracts Clause. It prohibits the states from interfering with valid contracts. There are Supreme Court opinions applying the contracts clause to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. So valid contracts with the government, no matter what the contractor supplies, instruments of torture, instruments of killing are probably not the basis

for litigation. Litigation would have to be on the other side against the government. And if the court stops that litigation, then you have to vote the government out of office. Sam, love you, Judge. You're a hero. Thank you, Sam. I don't consider myself a hero, but thank you very much. It's nice to hear. I consider myself somebody working very hard with a very good team and with ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox, that you do not read in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Atlanta Constitution, the mainstream newspapers in the United States. And I take, it requires a lot of effort, but it produces a lot of gratification to give you that version of events and to see how many of you are watching. You may not know that we are now up to nearly 300,000 subscribers.

That's extremely gratifying. Two weeks ago, we had 4 million views. To put that into perspective, that is more than most shows on MSNBC, CNN, News Nation, and even where my other job is on Newsmax. That is a startling number. But we average about 7 to 8 million a month. That was an extraordinary week, and I'm deeply gratified for those of you who give us those numbers. I think we'll do one

or two more, Chris. Michael Helmick, judge. Last Saturday was the third anniversary of Rush Limbaugh's passing. Did you know him, and if so, what was he like? I did know him because his first producer and his lifelong friend was my boss at Fox, who sort of took me from obscurity and gave me all the exposure that I had, Roger Ailes. And I was with Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes on a couple of occasions. Roger Ailes was a larger than life character. And so was Rush Limbaugh. Loved life, loved to preside over a large dinner parties, loved to express an opinion. I mean, the same way in private as he was on air. I didn't agree with him on everything. He's far

more a conservative Republican, or was far more a conservative Republican, and far less a libertarian than I am. But he broke the mold in talk news radio, and he took a lot of people under their wing who were involved in radio, not the least of whom was I, and I'm deeply grateful for it. So my voice is about at its limits, and we're about at ours. Thank you very much for this. I'm so glad that so many of you wrote in and are so happy with this. We used to do for this. I'm so glad that so many of you wrote in and are so happy with this. We used to do it every Friday. We haven't done it in a couple months.

We'll get back to doing it on a regular basis. Next week, all of our regulars, Colonel McGregor, Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Matej, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Phil Giraldi, even Ryan Dawson, whom a lot of you liked, back here on Judging Freedom. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. Keep watching, like, and subscribe. Let us jump over 300,000 this weekend, thanks to you. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom Thanks for watching!