Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson, McGovern, and Joe Kent - Weekly Wrap 24-July

Episode Date: July 24, 2026

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson, McGovern, and Joe Kent - Weekly Wrap 24-JulySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

An inspirational portrait of a farmer's son who rises from humble beginnings to build a luxury fashion empire. Brunello, the gracious visionary, traces Brunello Cucinelli's life journey, his commitment to craftsmanship, ethical values, and humanistic philosophy. Directed by Academy Award winner Giuseppe Tonatore, the film blends documentary and fiction, an intimate look at the Italian entrepreneur known as the King of Kashmir. See Brunello, the gracious visionary, now playing in select theaters. Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, 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? 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 Friday, July 24th,

It's the end of the day, the end of the week. It's our Intelligence Community Roundtable. Welcome to this special Intelligence Community Roundtable with our regulars, Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, and our special guest today, Joe Cantu, will soon be joining us on a regular basis. And gentlemen, welcome here. It's a pleasure.

Thank you very much for accommodating my schedule. It's summertime. It's Friday here in the Northeast. The weather's beautiful, but you're kind enough to sit in front of cameras for him. Joe, to you first, how unwise would it be for President Trump to order a ground assault of some portion of Iran? Well, thanks for having me. Great to be here.

It's a true honor. It would be incredibly unwise. I can't think of anything worse for him to do right now than order to put boots on the ground in any way, shape, or form. But I think it's a realistic concern and something that I think we should all. start speaking out about as publicly as possible. So I'm glad you're leading with this topic. President Trump's in a bind. He at one point in time attempted to get his way in Iran by using military force, realized that wasn't going to work. We felt the economic strains here at home. And then we entered into the MOU due to domestic pressure, I believe, and pressure from the Israelis.

He cut that parallel deal in Lebanon, which negated the MOU. And so now we're back to a scenario where he is trying to use military force to get what he wants. He's seen the limitations of our power in our air campaign right now. So I fear that he is going to be told that, hey, in order to escalate and in order to actually get the effects that he wants and open the streets of Formuz, he needs to do some form of a ground incursion around the Straits of Formuz. This would be disastrous. It would play right into the Iranians' hands. We would likely have a mass casualty event. And then we would be locked into an even more broader quagmire. Right now he's got a real narrow window. I still believe President Trump can pull everything out. And I think he could sell it

domestically here at home that it's been a win and he got what he wanted. And then we could quietly kind of renegotiate from from there. But I am very concerned about us putting boots on the ground here soon. We all know why you're no longer in the administration. Your letter of resignation was an act of intellectual honesty and personal courage. Does Donald Trump get intellectually honest advice or are the people around him either blinded ideologically or afraid to tell him what they truly think, Joe Kent? Unfortunately, I believe it's a combination of both. At this point, I think President Trump has narrowed his circle of advisors down to just a few people, Rubio Ratcliffe and maybe Hankseth occasionally and all of its gate kept by Susie Wiles. So unfortunately, I don't think that

the president is getting sober analysis and sober advice. There's also just been a cold. cultural aversion within the White House and the administration to give the president any kind of bad news. Everything has to have this positive spin on it, as opposed to somebody pulling him to the side very soberly and just laying out how bad of a situation that we're in right now. But President Trump, I do believe, is still pretty smart and he has decent instincts, despite what we've seen over the course of the last five months, which is why I am genuinely perplexed as to how we got into the situation in the first place. But I'm hoping President Trump can have some more clarity like he had as we went into the MOU when he just plainly said we had to get into the

MOU because of the tight timeline we're on because of the strain on the economy and just the shipment of oil and gas coming out of the Gulf. I hope that he starts listening to the vice president. I don't think he's listening to the vice president enough, but the vice president's instincts on this have been in the right spot. Raymond Governor, how does the Kremlin view the quagmire that Trump is in now. And will the Russians and the Chinese allow their friends in Tehran to be, I'll use Pete Hegeset's word, obliterated? I think the answer is with alarm as to how they view this. There's always the prospect that in the final analysis, nuclear weapons will be chosen.

And so the Chinese and the Russians are trying to fortify Iran. resolve, but they're also concerned about how this could get out of hand even more than it has already done. May I respond to Joe here? Sure. Your gutsy decision to resign was not only based on the principle that there was no imminent threat, but you also specifically said that it was because of Israel's influence and the influence of Israeli supporters in Washington that made this decision. and I've made, started the war.

Do you still think that is the Israelis that are hemming the president in, or are these advisors like Susie Wiles and the rest of them? To a certain extent, I believe the Israelis still have undue influence. I think that they are able to insert information that's meant to influence, rather than inform into the decision-making process because of the action. that they have. But overall, I think the Israelis, from their perspective, they played this very, very shrewdly. They got us on board with killing the Ayatollah early on, telling President Trump that this decapitation would bring down the regime when they knew, at least when I spoke with

them, that this would galvanize the Iranian people. This would cause a rally around the flag effect. This would make it so President Trump really couldn't strike a deal that the Israelis knew he would eventually want. The Israelis have always wanted regime decapitation, regime change. They don't care how chaotic it gets in the midst. But they needed America on board to do this. But they knew that after a while, we would seek a diplomatic solution. So the first thing they did was get us on board of killing the Ayatollah. So no diplomatic solution would be made possible. So at the end of the day, this is all that this is all because the Israelis kind of outmaneuvered us and outplayed us. And so they can sit back a little bit right now and just put in information about how, you know, the nuclear

dust, the enriched uranium has been moved, you know, to pick Axe Mountain to some new, new site that we have to go chase around. So I think the Israelis did a great job of just kind of baking this into the cake. Larry, I have a three-part question for you, prevailing upon all of your numerous expertise, fields of expertise. How dangerously low is U.S. military equipment and ammo, how dangerously low is the U.S. strategic petroleum reserves? And I know one of your fields is the economy. Why on earth in a worldwide depression that he caused would Trump be imposing tariffs at a time like this? Take him as you wish. Okay. Let's start with the, let's start with the precision guided missiles. Three categories of those, you've got the air defense

missiles the pack 3s the thads those are virtually exhausted so there's not even even at production rates with Lockheed Martin they can't be replaced anytime soon then you have the on the suppression of enemy air defense side with the harm again those those are at low levels of the inventory and then when you get into the the long the long range with tomahawk jasm the prism, the precision strike missile, which is the latest addition for the Heimar system, it can go about 300 miles. Lucky Martin made up 56 of those.

So those are exhausted. And then the attack of missiles, they're down and they're also down, but they only go 180 miles. So if they're launching from, say, Bahrain or Kuwait, they're not really going to be effective for much along the, the gulf uh the persian golf and but to rebuild and replace those uh the at the estimate of minimum three three to five years and they're totally dependent upon at least four minimum of four and in

some cases more rare earth minerals that china holds the provisions on okay so that deals with the missile shortage uh we're we're short there uh then let's come to the economy this this is this is where the real problem arises. The United States, while it's a net, it exports lots of sweet crude, that's not used to make diesel and aviation fuel. What's used

to make that is what's called sour crude, it's high in sulfur. We import that. We get it primarily from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and then we were getting it for the Persian Gulf, but we're not getting it there, so that was about 10% of the supply, and neither

Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela, can make up that difference. So we've already got a shortage there. And that shortage is now global. There's a global shortage of diesel and jet fuel. So with all of that, it is having a, it's going to start dragging down the economy. And on top of the shutoff that came out of the Persian Gulf with sulfur and urea, that affects fertilizer. So like in Mexico, we get the bulk of our fruits and vegetables here in the United States out of Mexico.

Okay, Mexican farmers had to pay double price in fertilizer, and then when those fruits and vegetables were loaded on trains and the, you know, diesel trains in some cases, and then they get to the United States and put on trucks to go to, you know, where there's Publix or Kroger or Giant or Safeway or all these. That's going on diesel, it's going to cost more there. So, I mean, you know, he's facing a real economic crisis, And he's trying to bomb his way out of it and he can't.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What's left? Okay. So, yeah, we're at the bottom of the barrel. People need to understand, again, the difference between sweet crude, sour crude. We got plenty of sweet. The problem is when the refineries are built, they're built to handle sour crude. Because it's more profitable.

But out of that, that's where you get the diesel and jet fuel. where right now the normal amount that was supposed to be with you could draw down to about 140 million barrels of oil that needed to be left in the reserve why if you draw below that because most of these are in salt caverns and to get the oil out they pump water in to raise the oil up but water and salt they tend to mix and get salt water it would degrade the instructional integrity of those caverns so now what has happened is they came out it's a panic move No, we'll draw down to 70 million barrels. That's going to most likely permanently damage many of these storage caverns, and they won't be able to be used again. And so then we really won't have much of a strategic reserve going into the future. Joe, is there a consensus across the U.S. intelligence community that Iran does not have and is not working on a nuclear weapon?

and that the claim that the purpose of war is to assure that they don't is a fig leaf for some other Israeli proposed purpose. Prior to us killing the supreme leader, yes. In the lead-up to the war, the IC was in agreement that the Iranian government was not in the process of making a nuclear weapon. We understood their strategy was to have the ability to enrich uranium. And that was their deterrent. And they said they don't want to- Might anybody give them a nuclear weapon?

Well, because we've let ourselves to believe that any country that we don't like having a nuclear weapon, it means that, you know, suddenly that they will automatically nuke us or something like that. But really, in reality, it makes them invasion proof. But the previous administrator, the previous Ayatollah, he had the Fathwa that declared that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon. and I don't trust Fatwas, however, this Fatwa had prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapon since 2003. Now that we've killed that Ayatollah, and we have attempted to do a regime change, and we have attacked Iran,

I do fear that we basically made a self-fulfilling prophecy, that now logically the hardliners in Iran, and actually I think just most like common sense Iranians will say, hey, we tried dealing with the Americans, we tried meeting them halfway, we said we wanted to have some degree of enrichment, we prevented ourselves from having a nuclear weapon, and we still got what Gaddafi got when he gave up all his nuclear weapons. We still got what Saddam got, but you know who didn't get invaded in North Korea. So we basically, if our stated goal was to have non-proliferation, we basically just made the case for every single country in the world out there to get their own nuclear weapon, or they're going to face exactly what Iran faced, which is a regime change war anytime they run afoul of the United States. That's my fear right now.

We have a way of doing this by creating self-fulfilling prophecies. We did this in Iraq when we said there's al-Qaeda in Iraq, working with Saddam. Well, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we went into Iraq and created a vector point for global jihadis and for an Al-Qaeda franchise to prop up inside of Al-Qaeda and inside of Iraq. And we know the rest of that story. So right now I am concerned about that. I do think the Iranians, though, are a little bit more pragmatic and shrewd. And they right now are being very cautious of maintaining somewhat of like a moral high ground.

just for the sake of messaging. So I don't think that they're going to sprint to get a nuclear weapon right now. I think we did set back their program a good deal when we did for all intents and purposes of Leverate the three facilities in June of Operation Midnight Hammer. But the Iranians are smart. At some point, they're going to, I believe they are going to develop a nuclear capability just as a deterrent. I don't think they're going to do that anytime soon because they don't want to basically

justify our aggression. But in the lead up, to answer your question, And to lead up to all this drama, there was no intelligence that indicated that Iran was moving towards developing a nuclear weapon. I want to segue over to Ukraine, Ray McGovern. Is President Putin likely to respond to the pressure that's on him and ramp up the use of the military into Ukraine or even consider attacking NATO manufacturing facilities in NATO countries? I don't think he has to do that. What he has already done is ramp up his attacks on Ukraine in a very measured but very positive way. He's also figured out a Russian equivalent of Starlink and there are electronic countermeasures that are working much better against Ukrainian drones and so forth.

So right now, I think that Putin is able to stave off any idea that he should go and attack a NATO country. What he has is Arashniks that can destroy decision-making centers in other places in Ukraine. He's winning the war, after all. Trump is totally unpredictable. Why would anybody be able to persuade Putin to take even? a 10% chance that Trump would honor the invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and say, oh, my God, NATO's been attacked in Latvia. Let's say, we got to brandish our nukes or something like that.

Putin is much more circumspect than that, in my view. Larry, is President Putin preparing, I think you wrote about this recently at Sonar 21, preparing a massive attack? Well, yeah, there's supposed to be one today, tomorrow. They're talking about 4,000 drones. And I forget how many. That would be massive, wouldn't it? Yeah, yeah.

Now, look, there has been a decided shift in Russian military strategy over the last three weeks. And it goes back, and Ray has talked about this before, when Dimitri Peschkov, on two consecutive days, referred to the, no longer referred to it as a special, military operation but as a war and intimated that this was also a war with NATO now i agree with ray that uh russia is not seeking to immediately start striking targets in european countries however what what they are doing is one they have now shut down the odessa port and nikolaiaport so nothing's going

in nothing's going out and the ukrainian government is in panic because but Before they were exporting grain, they were making money, and the imports that were coming in and were bringing in all sorts of military supplies. Now they have to rely upon those supplies going to Constanta and Romania being shipped overland, which means they can only get maybe, if they're lucky, a third of the volume

of what they were receiving previously. So in addition to those massive strikes on Odessa, then you've had this continuous blasting of production facilities, manufacturing facilities, command facilities in Kyiv, that we're not talking one day, two day. I mean, they've gone on in consecutive days. And then you've got the ground operations, which there are at least six different axes. You've got the operations that are encircling Sumi in the north, Kharkiv and the northeast.

The Dinesk operations are surrounding Sloviansk and Kramatarsk. You've got them pushing in Nipro-Petros. They've already crossed the river onto the west bank. You've got operations in Apparisia and operations in Kerasan. So the Russians, they're running on full cylinders right now. Joe, I'm thinking of when President Trump and Vice President Vance humiliated Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office, maybe a year and a half ago. How has Donald Trump's thinking, as far as you can tell, changed? from that day to now, on Ukraine.

Yeah, on Ukraine, unfortunately, I don't believe that we ever exerted our maximum amount of pressure on the Ukrainians to stop that. I think the president had the best of intentions, and this is a place where I think he probably should listen to more to his vice president. Unfortunately, we didn't do a very good job of taking away the incentives for the Ukrainians to continue to fight. the deck was stacked pretty heavily against the president coming in. He was frustrated that Putin wasn't more eager to get to the negotiating table. But by the time President Trump even came in, I think Putin had kind of found his rhythm. And he was slowly eking out what in his view was a pathway to victory. I think we had a hard time comprehending that from our perspective because the Russians were losing so many people on the battlefield.

And so I think the president just got frustrated that both sides didn't get the negotiating table. I do think he caved up to some of the pressure here domestically and from NATO saying that we had to continue to support Ukraine. And so even a couple of different efforts that we made to try to get the Ukrainians in negotiating table, I don't think we ever fully implemented them. And I don't think we gave them enough time. We would have an ability, I think, to influence the end of this war if we simply stop funding Ukraine. And we press in our NATO allies to stop funding Ukraine as well. But we haven't been bold and decisive in doing that.

And so now it's going to continue closer and closer to a major conflict. And just between what's happening on the battlefield, potential escalation, but then also just world energy supply, what's taking place in Russia. It's not being talked about anywhere near as much as it should be. Now we've got two major choke points in the Middle East, Straits of Formuz and Bobo-Mandib that have been restricted. And then now we have major disruptions up north with the world energy. market. And so all of this could contribute to a global energy crisis that we'll definitely

feel here at home that we won't have much of a remedy for. And again, we should have been taking, we should have been getting a lot of that support away from the Ukrainians to get them to the negotiating table. But I don't think we stayed with that for long enough. Does the president understand, Joe, that the Russians consider the United States to be a co-belligerent in this war? I think he does, but I believe that he thought that he could come and through the force of his personality, he could get Putin and Zelensky to the table and that he would be able just through the sheer will of Donald Trump be able to get them to kind of give up their ambitions and give President Trump a quick win when, in fact,

it was much more complicated than that. And again, Putin knows. Putin would be able to see and understand if we truly stop supporting the Ukrainians. And I just think he never saw that seriously implemented from the president. So I feel like Putin, you know, He's paid lip service every now and again to us here in the West, but I think he's just basically like, I'm on my asthma. I have my mission. I have my objective. I'm going to continue to try and accomplish it.

Anyone who gets in my way, this is existential to Russia. I don't think we've internalized that enough here in America, how existential this threat is to the Russians. And so they will be successful in this and they don't really care how long it's going to take them. I'm going to ask Larry and Ray the same question. Ray, on the intelligence side, Larry, on the contrary. military side. How many Americans are in Ukraine helping the Ukrainians, Larry? And who are they?

Not by name, but are they military? Are they contractors? Are they intelligence? Well, there is a CIA presence and the CIA, I'll call paramilitary presence. But then you also have a group of mercenaries. Now, the mercenary force is not as large as it used to be. I would I would estimate it's probably less than 500 now. It used to be fairly large. You remember he used to interview one of them on your show two years ago. He's now he got arrested in like... His last name is Van Dyke.

Yeah, man, he got arrested somewhere in another country trying to promote insurrection and such. So the biggest surprise in the mercenary front actually comes out of Colombia and Brazil. So they've been doing a lot of heavy recruiting there. And those guys are suffering enormous casualties. So look, there is no viable military path forward for the Ukrainian military. Because it's one thing, you know, you drag a guy in off the street, slap a uniform on him, give him a rifle.

It's okay, go get him Tiger. you know, we'll get Joe one of these days to talk about the extensive training that encompassed, you know, making him into what he was, you know, when he goes through basic training, then he goes through advanced individual training, and then as he goes up and qualifies and has to go through selection for other units, such as, you know, the 70th, the Ranger unit and gets into the 70th Rangers and the progression, you know, you're talking years. You know, you just don't grab somebody and toss him into combat and expect them to be somehow combat effective. And yet, that's exactly what Ukraine's doing.

Russia, on the other hand, has the luxury. It has shifted his strategy back in September of 2022, but it didn't get the full implementation of people going through the pipeline of the training that they would get months and a year of training before they were thrown into the front lines. And that makes all the difference in the world. So, you know, what we're witnessing is just a slow death on the part of the Ukrainian side. And Joe is exactly right in saying how the Russians view it. It's an existential threat.

And they're not on the clock. This is not fourth quarter with two minutes left in the game. Ray, last question to you, the level of activity of American intel in Ukraine. Well, Judge, I'm not very well plugged in these. days you're talking to two much younger guys that could talk about that. Thank you. Thank you for that generous compliment. My Irish grandmother would say, all my contacts are dead now, like it's their fault, you know. So let me, if I may, ask Joe a question that is really key, and that is

will we know if the Iranians move to develop a nuclear weapon. Now, Bill Burns, just two weeks before he left, the CIA director said, oh, we'll go immediately. Just a couple of weeks, we'll go for sure. Important question. Is that still the case? Then I have one more question for you.

Again, I think before we killed the Ayatola, I would never be that confident, because I always, coming from the Intel world, I always feel like we overestimate how much we know in general. But before we killed the Ayatollah and before things changed drastically inside of Iran, I think we did have a pretty good idea of what was going on there now. Now, obviously, we still have overhead imagery and all of our fancy technology to monitor things there. So there's a good chance that we would pick it up. However, we've killed a lot of people inside

Iran. So there are a lot of, you know, fourth string people who are much more junior, who maybe we're not aware of who are now critical players in this process and the Iranians have showed us throughout the course of this war they have a really deep bench of talent so I think that we really need to check our own you know kind of hubris here and think to ourselves that we don't have as clear of a picture as we think that we think that oh we would 100% pick up Iran you know moving to have a nuclear weapon or something like that I think that that's just a lot of wishful thinking Iran is It's a challenging place for us to operate in as we're seeing. It's a place where we've made a lot of assumptions,

and those assumptions have proven to be wrong. So again, this is a place where I think we need to really prioritize our own unilateral collection and not rely on partners like the Israelis to make sure we do have a clear picture. I think you have one more question for Joe, Ray, and then we have a little special announcement. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to sort of draw your attention to the Israeli aspect here, of course. Maybe you'd agree that 99.44% of our intelligence about how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon comes from the Israelis, right? So this was the same with respect to Iraq. And when you started out earlier saying, oh, my God, the president has a very narrow circle of advisors, your words.

We finished up our first veteran intelligence professionals for sanity memo to George Bush, giving him the benefit of the doubt. saying, Mr. President, please widen the circle of your advisors beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no imperative reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic, period. I quote, I memorized it. And they were catastrophic, and it was mostly Israel's doing and its puppets. And so I just like close the circle here. Israel was mostly responsible for Iraq as well as what we're doing in Iran. And that's something we have to say because not many other people say it. Thanks for indulging me, Joe and Judge. I guess the question to Joe is, do you agree? 100%. Yeah. And I have read that memorandum. And it's true right now. Just switch out Iraq for Iran. And it's the exact same advice is what we're. President Trump should be adhering to. I fear that he won't. We have a really bad habit of not learning from our own past mistakes and our past history. It's a big reason why I'm trying to speak out as much as I can right now. I think our generation of veterans should really speak up because

we've seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Wow. Well, all good things must come to an end and Ray McGovern is going to semi-retire from judging freedom. He has, of course, been a mainstay on Monday mornings as well as on Friday afternoons. But even before judging freedom came into existence, Ray had a profound influence on your humble host because I've been reading what he's been writing for years. In fact, I remember saying to our mutual friend, Lou Rockwell, this guy can't be X-CIA. Do you see what he's saying? But everything he predicted came to pass and his logic is in a salable. and his intellect is overpowering and his courage is over the top. Ray, we have a farewell for you, which is the best of Ray McGovern.

Ray McGovern will be with us in just a moment. My dear friend, Ray McGovern joins us now. Ray, thank you very much for your time. Ray McGovern joins us for his weekly session with us. Ray, always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Ray McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend. We have a great deal to analyze.

Ray McGovern joins us now. Ray, pleasure, my dear friend. We have a lot to talk about. Ray McGovern will be here with us in just a moment on Europe's views of Russia. Ray McGovern joins us now. Ray, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Scaramucci looked a little bit like Hick Seth's father, didn't he?

I mean, he had the same kind of kid, my God, you know. Ray McGovern, good day, dear, my friend. Thank you, as always, for being here. time after time, shape the intelligence to fit the policy that he, Casey, wanted to pursue. Donald Trump makes a lot of contradictory statements and actions, and that really complicates matters. He's inconsistent and his statements, and this is not making our work any easier. Well, the same here, okay? I risk my case.

The Mickey Matt has grown like Topsy. it's the major threat to our freedoms. We have to recognize it because as strong as we are, if we look at each other as a movement, we need to realize that this is a tough nut to crack and we can't desist or flinch for a moment from attacking, especially in media. And that's why programs like this and other alternative media, so-called, are so essential to our freedom right now. Sorry to carry on so long. No, no, no, it's a great answer, Ray.

And everybody watching us now knows that you and Larry Johnson and Alistair Crook and Professor Sacks and Professor Mirosheimer and Colonel McGregor and Scott Ritter, Matt Ho, and Karen Koukowski, and Max Blumenthal and Anya Parenthold and Aaron Matei and Colonel Wilkerson cannot get on the mainstream media. Because the people that own and operate and invest in the mainstream media do not want to hear the version of events that alternative media of which this is one. And I am certainly and overwhelmingly grateful for the success of this show. We started out with 93 subscribers who are now up to 380,000 will be a half a million, I think, by Christmas. Breaking news. Breaking news. Judge, it's worse than that. All those people you just mentioned, save one or two,

are on the enemies list of a nonprofit funded and supported by our State Department. As soon as I read the Department of Justice official report, I couldn't believe it. That's the end of Joe Biden. I mean, hello, this is, I tweeted it immediately. So, you know, give him a break. He's old. diminished faculties and he's a fifting age and you know he's very sympathetic though so we

didn't think a jury would convictor hello may i just say a word for joe uh you know black shirts are not required let me also announce that every shirts uh you never We're all black, but they really work against his shirts. And my tribute to Johnny Cash is just, you know, kind of there. So good luck, Joe. And Larry, I know you'll keep going. Thanks, Judge, for all your kindnesses. Let me also announce that we have three one-hour specials being aired this week,

which is the best of Ray McGovern, which includes some other stuff that didn't necessarily have. on the show like when you were arrested and all of that, but I know you're very proud of because you were doing it from your heart. But Ray, God love you. God bless you. Thank you for everything. I hope you'll come back and visit with us from time to time.

I want to get the special. So we're going to start selling Ray McGovern supplements. Because if you take his supplement, you too can be 87 years old and sharp as attack. Joe Kent, thank you. We'll see you next week. Thank you. We'll see you on Monday, Ray. God love you. We'll call you when we need you, and that'll probably be sooner rather than later. Terrific. Thank you both. Thank you all. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Sure. Monday, all of your regulars, not Ray, but all of your regulars

will be here. By the way, the subscription numbers are significantly higher. We did start at 93, and now we're up to 77,000. Thank you. Thanks to you. Judge the Paul Tano for judging freedom.