Judging Freedom - CPT. Matt Hoh : Trump Believes His Own Propaganda!

Episode Date: March 17, 2026

CPT. Matt Hoh : Trump Believes His Own Propaganda!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. 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 Tuesday, March 17, 2006. St. Patrick's Day here in the West, particularly in the U.S. and especially in New York City. Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, it's a pleasure, my dear friend, no matter what we're talking about, thank you for joining us. I want to ask you about the resignation of Joe Kent, the senior

counterterrorism official in the federal government. In his resignation later letter to the president, he said, among other things, quote, Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. Now, he saw with the top security clearance the same intel as the president, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Higgiseth, FBI director, Ratcliffe. And he comes to that conclusion. Right. And thanks for having me on, Judge. A conclusion, no different than I would say yourself and any of my colleagues who, been coming on this program and other program has been saying for years now. Iran is not an imminent threat.

You know, that the dangers to the United States from Iran are, you know, you're talking about the realm of fantasy. Or, you know, more importantly, as Kent talks about in his resignation, the pressure put on the United States by foreign interests, in this case, Israeli interests. that pushed the United States into this war. So how significant is this? I mean, where's Chelsea Gabbard, who was until this morning his boss?

Right. You know, we've said this, you know, for past 14 months now, where's Tulsi or what's Tolsey going to do about this? Or should we expect anything? And I don't think we should expect anything from Tulsi Gabbard, unfortunately. I think what Joe Kent saw, and has already a smear campaign against him, is already a campaign out there to discredit him.

And I'm sure all the major television networks and newspapers are being told, if you have this Joe Kent guy come on your program, then guess what? You're not going to have President Trump or Secretary Hague Seth or Marco Rubio on your programs. And I say that because that's exactly what happened when I resigned 17 years ago. These media outlets were told if you have this Matt Ho guy on, then you're not going to talk to any of your generals. Then your reporters are not going to go on trips to Afghanistan where they'll get to ride around in helicopters with Stamacrystal. This is a type of access journalism that is being practiced right now by the administration in order to silence Jo Ken. But the difference, Judge, is that 17 years ago, what we're doing here right now on your program was unheard of. And people didn't have smartphones.

And there was really, we had social media, but it certainly wasn't like it is now. So Joe Ken's ability to explain to the American people what he saw, what he knows, and why he acted, specifically how this war is not in the interests of the United States and its people, how this war is an unnecessary war. and how this war is a war prompted by foreign interests, the Israeli lobby, you know, is something that this administration may have a really hard time trying to control or clamp down. Wow. Here's what the president said.

Nice guy, but weak. What he won, Chris? Well, I read it in the statement. I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. I didn't know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy.

But when I read a statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was. The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it. They've been a threat for a long time. But they've really been a threat. If I didn't terminate Obama's horrible deal that he made,

the Iran nuclear deal, you would have had a nuclear war four years ago. You would have had nuclear holocaust, and you would have had it again if we didn't bomb the site. So when somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran was a threat, we don't want those people because, and there are some people, I guess I would say that, but they're not smart people or they're not savvy people. Iran was a tremendous threat.

What, Chris, if you have it, here's what the president said when he nominated Joe Kent right before his Senate confirmation. It's my pleasure to nominate Joe Kent as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. As a soldier, Green Beret and CIA officer, Joe, has hunted down terrorists and criminals his entire adult life. Above all, Joe knows the terrible cost of terrorism, losing his wonderful wife, Shannon, a great American hero who was killed in the fight against ISIS. Joe continues to honor her legacy by staying in the fight. Joe will help us keep America safe by eradicating all terrorism from the jihadists around the world to the cartels in our backyard. Congratulations, Joe, from the president of the United States. So I guess he's a little bitter.

I can't wait to interview Joe. What did you see? You saw the same thing that the others saw in classified documents. I'll tell you what he didn't see and what he didn't see. he didn't hear what BB whispered into Donald's ear. That's exactly right, Judge. That's exactly right. He was only party to certain conversations.

And even as a director of the National Counterterrorism Center, how much face time did he actually have with the president? I mean, that's John Ratcliffe's job. That's Tulsi Gabbard's job. We know Tulsi has been a fantastic disappointment to many of us for the last several years. And John Ratcliffe, of course, we couldn't trust him. He is, you know, he is essentially the Israel lobby's guy at the CIA in the American government.

And the Israel lobby has essentially said that at points. Ratcliffe is one of those that when he was in the Congress was pointed to by the Israeli lobby as someone who is loyal, someone who's dependable. But, you know, so this aspect of what else? What was it that Trump was being told? That's something certainly. that you get them on your program, Judge, and you should talk to. But just, I mean, Donald Trump, just continue to amaze us, right? Judge, I mean, here you have the President of the United States saying, this guy, ah, he's a nice guy, but he was always weak on security, so that you made him,

you're the director of National Current Terrorism Center. Really? That's what you did? That was the logic you pursued? I mean, so just, I mean, the unraveling of this administration is just incredible. But the fact that we are fighting in this war, which is the biggest, largest military campaign for the United States since Barack Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan 17 years ago, as well as the fact of the direct implications of this war, right? Spreading into a regional war, prompting global economic recession, possibly a depression, and the long-term consequences of this war. the reality that this will further de-dollarization, that this will hurt long-term American interests, this will alienate and isolate the United States, not just from neutral countries or its adversaries,

but from its allies. I mean, this war could very well be the radical transformation in world history that only certain events are able to achieve. This will be the war that certainly is the event that historians look back and say, this is the end of the American Empire, This is the end of the United States dominance as the sole superpower. And this is when we are firmly now entrenched in a multipolar world with, I think, really great consequences, none of them positive for the United States and its people.

Wow. I mean, has the government ever been able to articulate a basis for war? Usually the basis for war is to advance American empire. This is to advance Israeli empire. Well, I mean, Judge, I'm in, we've talked about this, and you've had a great series of debates on this going back a year or two ago. You had all of us answering this question about how do we get to this point? Is this direct consequence of the Israel lobby or is there something more to it? Essentially, which comes first, the American Empire or direct actors like the Israel lobby?

I'm in the camp that this is the result of America as an empire, that this is the nature of empire. This is what empires do, and that we had an empire and we did such things like wars of conquest or wars to maintain our hegemony long before there was an Israel, or before there was a military industrial complex, or before there was a fossil fuel industry. We were engaging in the conquest of North America. We were overthrown the government in Hawaii. We were destroying the Mexican government in its possessions, the Spanish government and its possessions, et cetera. etc, et cetera, et cetera. So that's where I'm at, that the Israelis are essentially a subset or a manifestation of the American Empire. And I always point back, of course, to say the Balfour Declaration

of 1917, where the British established Jewish colonization of Palestine as an official policy. And then, of course, the Americans take over from the British Empire in the Middle East. And so what was their responsibilities, what was their obligations, what were their duties, as well as their views, the Americans assumed. And that, I think, culminates, you know, certainly with the Nixon doctrine in the 1970s, where essentially Israel is determined to be by Nixon and Kissinger as America's sheriff in the Middle East, along with the Shah of Iran. But I certainly think this war, though, that is a consequence of all that inertia with things like Israel being a manifestation of the American Empire. But that certainly doesn't say that it can also be true.

that we have a system of legalized bribery as our government, and the Israel lobby has captured, in the modern sense, the American decision-making on its Middle Eastern policies, just as name whatever interest or industry you want. And we could show how they've captured, you know, the relevant policy making for them. So it's a complex thing here, but certainly this idea that Iran is an enemy. Iran is a threat to the United States. Iran. Iran needs to be, well, the humiliation of losing Iran in 1979 with the very vivid, the very vivid theater of the hostage crisis in 1979. That certainly provides the vitriol.

That certainly provides the visceral anger. You know, we've got to amend or we got to make good on this humiliation or this betrayal. And so that's certainly there as well. Then plus the military industrial complex, you've got the fossil fuel industry, you've got the fact that Iran's a country of 92, 93 million people that have largely been cut off from the West. So this is a market for how many different American industries. We don't think that Facebook and Google and Microsoft and Apple and all the rest, Orange is rubbing their hands at the prospect of getting into a population of nearly 100 million people. that's largely untouched by the American tech sector. You know what I mean?

So there are many different fathers and mothers for this. I go back to the American Empire, but certainly the room of people and interests and institutions that want this war is a pretty big one. Wow. Here's an interesting clip of President Vance, doing his best to flatter, Vice President Van, Vince, forgive me,

doing his best to flatter President Trump, when confronted with a role, reporter by his Tulsi Gabbard-like statements made three or four years ago. Chris, number 16. I know what you're trying to do, Phil. You're trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration between me and the president. What the president said consistently, going back to 2015, and I agreed with them, is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. We have taken this military action under the president's leadership. I think all of us, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, should pray for a success and pray for the safety of our

troops. That's the approach that I've taken. Make it as successful as possible. So there's no hesitation given your past statements with the current operation? What do you mean there's no hesitation with my past statements? Given your skepticism of more adventurous, you were a critic of the global war on terror previously. Well, I think one big difference, Phil, is that we have a smart president, whereas in the past we've had dumb presidents. And I trust President Trump to get the job done, to do a good job to the American people and to make sure that the mistakes of the past aren't repeated, absolutely. Look, Jody's been great.

I wondered to whom he was comparing President Trump when he said he was smart and we've had dumb, dumb presidents. I don't know. I wish such talk, like, I wish this was all just glib, you know, and we were just being overly petty, you know? It's real. I mean, it's real. This aspect of, again, you just had a president who just, said out loud, I thought the guy was weak on security and then I made him my director of counterterrorism. I mean, what, who? I mean, are you listening to yourself, Mr. President? You know, but I think

Vance's comments there, I mean, I think that there's a simple explanation for that. Vance knows that if he wants President Trump's endorsement in 2028, he needs to get in line. You know, and I think it's as simple as that. I think Vance has ruined his own political career. I think it would have been much better off if he had stayed in the Senate and was free to follow his conscience. What does he stand for? Whatever is necessary to please Trump? Right. Is that a defect of modern vice presidents? You know, I think it's one, it reminds me of John Kerry, you know, and the whole, you know, go back 20 years and flip-flopping and, you know, everything else. But I think that that's the,

look at the Democratic Party in this as well. Look at Chuck Schumer. or Hakeem Jeffries, other leaders within the party, their vagueness on all this, their determination to be against the war, but also to fund it. I mean, there is just a lack of not just character, but principle that is resident through our entire political class. I mean, this is an unpopular war, yet the Democratic Party, the opposition party, seems to not want to utilize that. I mean, so this is the reality that wars can have political consequences. We saw that in 2006. We saw that in 2008.

We saw that in 2016. But it doesn't change the war making. All you do is take one half of the Uniparty out of power and put the other half back in. Right. You know, I mean, I just heard a quote I'd never heard before, you know, that the United States is a one-party system. but with usual American extravagance, we have two of them. You know, I mean, so the political consequences here, while they are real to whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the chair, it doesn't have anything to do in terms of how it's going

to affect the American Empire and its warmaking. Wow. Here's an interesting montage that our friends of CNN put together on the topic of who agrees with whom, Chris. If we ever needed help, they won't be there for us. I've just known that for a long period of time. We have some that are really enthusiastic. They're coming already. This is a need.

Need would be one of the big boys. If we need their mind boats or if we need anything, any piece of apparatus that they may have because of a situation that they have, they should be jumping to help us. We want them to come and help us with the... straight. My attitude is we don't need anybody. We're the strongest nation in the world. We have the strongest military by far in the world. We don't need them. Well, he really is all over there, all over the place. I think the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment here, Judge, is something that is not hyperbole. It's not partisan, I think, you know, even.

Except his, if you ever watch those cabinet meetings, they are all sycophants, unless that's just an act. Right, exactly. No, I can't, you can't imagine that. You know, and the, you know, there's so many comparisons to 2003 invasion, which I think are apt and very helpful. But there's also differences as well in terms of the similarities. And one of those differences is, is the people that surround, that surrounded George W. Bush versus the people that surround Donald Trump. And, you know, I don't know which is worse. So they're both equally abhorrent. But with the Bush administration, you had men and women, that were committed ideologues. They were loyal to the institutions, the institutions, the infrastructures, you know, on which they sat, right? They had a worldview that was based upon their principles and their beliefs, however, again, abhorrent they may be. This administration judge, there's nothing here, aside's loyalty to the president.

As you said, they are just simply yes men and yes women. They are con men and grifters. They're nihilists and sadists. and they have no loyalty to anything other than themselves and to their boss, certainly not to any principles, not to any institutions, not to any type of thing larger than themselves. Here's someone we're not frequently fond of quoting, but she nails this, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green last night, Chris number 12.

Why would an American president lead his political party into the midterms, waging a full-scale major war, completely unprovoked on Iran, on behalf of Israel, and that's the way most Americans see it. They see this is for Israel, not for America. Why would an American president do that, which is forcing gas prices to hike right here going into spring break where families are going to be driving out of town, going into summer, declaring and waging a major full-scale war that seems to have no end in sight, that is not de-escalate. It's escalating every single day. And it just doesn't make sense.

We said on every single rally stage, no more foreign wars, no more regime change. It's time to put America first. And this is a complete betrayal of those campaign promises. I think she nailed it. I think she did. I think she did. You know, there are, there are, what's the character as she is.

On this, she's correct. Right. You know, and the one thing, you know, I've seen multiple reports now stories that in the U.S. Army where when soldiers exchange salutes with their officers, they usually give a reply or a greeting. And in this case, the soldiers have been saying recently to their officers as they salute them, you know, for Epstein, you know, right? This idea that is, right, this understanding throughout the military as our society,

that this is all crooked. It's all corrupt. And I think that's why this Epstein story is so. important. It's not because it's salacious or sensational or scandalous, but it's because it really does tell the story of America, that there are two different classes here, and that those who are not, as George Carlin would say, it's a big club and you ain't in it. And I think that's why the story of the Epstein case resounds. And it cuts across all the fake boundaries, right? All the supposed lines between good and bad and righteous and and and and slimy or whatever that that we tell

ourselves in our partisan media about you know the democrat republican party the epstein story blows that all away and so i think in addition to this question of why would they launch this war it's unpopular it's a war of choice i mean i think it was because their hubris was so uh so enlarged particularly by a success of the nicholas medoro kidnapping they thought they could do anything who's going to stop us. But, you know, also this other aspect of it that that green and others bring up is that this war really shows a difference. And there's that, you know, I heard from that Iranian professor I said it a week or two ago, quote him again, you know, where he says that this is, you know, this is a war on Iran by the Epstein class, men and women who

either bomb children or rape them, you know, and I mean, as distasteful or as crass as that may sound, there's a great sliver or element of truth that runs through it that many Americans are identifying with or recognizing. Wow. These are great observations. They're uncomfortable truths, Matt, but they need to be articulated, and I thank you for doing it. I also thank you for posting that ballad earlier today because of St. Patrick's there. I forget where you posted it, but I saw it and it was beautiful. on my on substack and I reposted a speech I gave two years ago on St. Patrick's Day as well,

speaking to the relationship between the Irish and the Palestinians. And if people can see today, I don't have my usual peace poppy on, my white poppy. I'm wearing a black shamrock, which Irish are wearing to recognize and to remember the genocide in Gaza, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and the resistance. of the Palestinians against colonizations, something that my ancestors in Ireland bought against, including my grandmother and her family, barely even 100 years ago.

Well, thank you, Matt. Happy St. Patrick's Day. God bless you. All the best to you, my friend. Thanks, Judge. Sure. Coming up at 3 o'clock, of you watching us live in 35 minutes on all of this,

she has some wild observations to make, Colonel Karen Koukowski, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.