Judging Freedom - Hot Topics Biden in Kiev, Poland wants US troops, DOD wants diversity & SCOTUS

Episode Date: February 20, 2023

#Biden #Ukraine #Poland #war #scotus #diversitySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, February 20th, 2023. It's about 17 or 18 minutes after 11 o'clock in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. Here are our hot topics for today. As you may know, the president of the United States made a surprise visit to Kiev, Ukraine today. He's actually already left and is now in Poland. And while he was in Kiev, of course, he made one of his famous promises, which he's made several times in the past, and that is to continue to supply Ukraine with military equipment, quote, for as long as it takes. My question, Mr. President, is as long as it takes to do what?

What is your clear objective? The law requires a clear, reasonable, attainable military objective before you can send money and troops anywhere. We all know that the Congress has not authorized troops. It's only authorized cash and military equipment. The president has sent cash and military equipment and troops. Now, Congress authorized $100 billion, with a B, in cash and military equipment. The president thus far has spent about $50 billion in cash and military equipment. We don't know how many troops are there, but we know they're there. They're out of uniform, so they're there in secret. They're there as, quote, advisors and instructors, closed quote, showing the Ukrainian troops how to use American military equipment. In the case

of some equipment, which is physically located in Ukraine, Americans physically located in Poland are using the American equipment in Ukraine to target Russian troops in Ukraine and in Russia, and then are pulling the trigger from Poland. If that's not American troops firing on Russian troops, I don't know what is. Has the Congress authorized American troops to fire on Russian troops? It has not. Has the Congress declared war on Russia? Of course it has not. There's no legal, moral, or constitutional basis for a war against Russia. But Joe Biden is waging a war against Russia. Mr. President, you're going to give aid to Ukraine for as long as it takes. As long as it takes. I've asked this before. I'll ask it again.

To accomplish what? What is your goal? He won't say. If his goal is to remove Russian troops from Ukraine and maybe, as the American State Department and its colleagues in Western Europe have hinted and Senator Lindsey Graham has publicly asked for, that is militarily impossible to achieve. military goal against Russia and without a clear-cut military threat to the United States or United States persons or property or national security from Russia, there's absolutely no basis whatsoever for a military aid against Russia and for commencing, Mr. President, a war against Russia, a secret war with troops out of uniform. They're in uniform in Poland where they pull some triggers, but they're out of uniform in Ukraine where they're on the ground and where they're actually demonstrating to Ukraine troops how to use the equipment. Latest polls show 48.

This number astounds me, my friends, 48% of the American public supports American military involvement in Ukraine. I'm not going to say that 48% are crazy. I'm going to say that 48% are only hearing one side of the story, which we're getting from mainstream media, which it's getting from the CIA. What's the other side of the story? You've're getting from mainstream media, which it's getting from the CIA. What's the other side of the story? You've just heard me articulate it. And I will add to it, it is a crime, Mr. President, it is a war crime to attack a NATO ally, as you did with the Navy and the CIA destroying the Nord Stream pipeline owned jointly by Germany, an ally, a signatory to the NATO treaty, and by Russia, which poses us no threat whatsoever. The former inspector general for Afghan aid, so when the government gives away a lot of money, it hires a team of people to make sure that the money gets into the hands of the right people.

George W. Bush's people did that,, in cash that went to Afghanistan, has cautioned against the dangers of there being no inspector general for Ukraine. Why is there no inspector general for Ukraine? Why, when Congressman Thomas Massey introduced legislation in the House and Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation in the Senate to accompany this $100 billion giveaway, that there be an inspector general on the ground in Ukraine so we know exactly in whose hands the money and the military equipment is going. Why was there not a vote permitted in the House or the Senate on either of those pieces of legislation? Why is it that occasionally when Russia is defeated and its troops desert an area and we capture the equipment,

it's American equipment that we've captured. Somehow it got from American storehouses to Ukraine, to Russia, damaged, and back to us. Doesn't make any sense. It's crazy. It's insane. Mr. President, do you know what you're doing? I most respectfully suggest you do not. I guess your people are reading the polls. It's an awfully high number. It's down from 60%, but 48% of Americans apparently want you to continue this warmongering and this nonsense. Poland is in talks with the American State Department to increase the number of American troops in Poland. How many American troops do we have in Poland? 40,000 in uniform, training, ready to go within 10 miles, as I I speak of the Polish-Ukraine border. And Poland wants more.

They're working with 90,000 Polish troops. The president of Poland is being very unrealistic. He wants an invasion of Ukraine led by American and Polish troops to eliminate Russian troops from Crimea. Crimea has been part of Russia for 300 years. Crimea is Russian speaking, and he wants to invade Crimea and eliminate all vestiges of the Russian government there. There's no way that Joe Biden, maybe I'm wrong, is foolish enough to do even that. Part of the problem with the military today, I have to mention this because it's a tweet that came from the Defense Department

glorifying United States government organizations that engage in diversity. Okay, the government should not make decisions based on race or gender. I get it. I believe that. But when it makes decisions based on race and gender in order to compensate for past discrimination based on race and gender, then it's lowering the standards often in order to meet certain quotas. Those quotas should not exist in the military. The purpose of the military is to avoid war. But if war comes, to be able to fight it with the best equipment and the best human beings. Chris is biting my arm. Chris, I wish I could bring your hand up to show people how I let you bite my arm. He doesn't break the skin. According to the vet, it's his way of showing he loves me,

but he's getting carried away. The military should not be hung up on wokeness. The military should be hung up on preparedness, so strong that there will be no attack. The military people that I talk to suggest that the goal of the military should be to avoid war, not to wage it, but prepared to wage it if the inevitable comes. Wokeness weakens the military because it focuses the military on statistics rather than on material strength. Last item in our hot topics for today is the Supreme Court of the United States. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two very interesting and potentially explosive cases below the radar because they pertain to big tech. Two lawsuits against big tech, one against Twitter and one against Google.

Both are cases where people were killed because ISIS posted horrible, horrific, terror-inciting postings on Twitter and on Google. One was the 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack. One was the 2015 Paris attack. In the 2015 Paris attack, the daughter of my friend and former colleague Geraldo Rivera was there at the time of the attack. She escaped. But the estate of a young American who did not escape is suing Google. In the Istanbul attack, the escape of a young American who did not escape is suing Twitter. And Google and Twitter are saying Section 213 of the federal statute that authorizes the internet protects it from liability for the consequences of what's posted there. If the Supreme Court finds Section 230 unconstitutional, if Google's responsible for what anyone posts on Google, if Twitter's responsible for what anyone posts on Twitter,

then it will no longer be the free market in ideas that it has become. It'll be Google afraid to post and Twitter afraid to post, and they will be sanctioning every opinion under the sun that they think is going to cause them liability. So I fervently hope that the Supreme Court doesn't go there. Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals are all supporting the evisceration of Section 230 because everybody's got a beef with Google. I don't like what Google does and I don't like what Twitter does, but something about me loves the freedom of speech and wants you to be able to post and read whatever you want, wants you to decide what to read.

Not Google and Twitter's fear, and certainly not the government. But this is the stakes of these oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The Google case is tomorrow, Tuesday. The Twitter case is the next day, Wednesday. We'll see how it goes. It's interesting. A majority of Congress wants to get rid of Section 230, but they can't agree on how to do it. They don't have the courage to do it. I'm glad that they don't have the courage to do it, even though most members of Congress are gutless. They're only there because they're waving to the crowd because they want to get reelected. But I hope they don't tamper with Section 230 because it's a great defense of human liberty. It is one of the greatest defenses of the freedom of speech that we have.

More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.