Judging Freedom - Kyle Anzalone: Trump, Antiwar, and Free Speech.

Episode Date: January 8, 2025

Kyle Anzalone: Trump, Antiwar, and Free Speech.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, January 8, 2025. Kyle Anzalone joins us from antiwar.com. Kyle, it's a pleasure to see you again. Thank you for all the help you have provided us and all the insight you shared with us during 2024. And I hope you can continue to do so in 2025 and welcome here. Thank you. Always happy to join you and your audience. Thank you. Has, I know he's, the Trump administration is not even in office yet, but the president is making all kinds of noises which must resonate at antiwar.com. They resonate here. They resonate with the audience. Congressman Michael Waltz, whom President-elect Trump has indicated he will nominate to be National Security Advisor. I believe you wrote that Mike Waltz said the unthinkable, that the new administration will do what it can to suppress the freedom of speech when that speech is used to support the rights of the Palestinian people? Do I have that right, Kyle? Yeah, that's absolutely right, Judge. And

it's important to note that Mike Waltz is going to be Trump's national security advisor, and that isn't a position that requires Senate confirmation. And so he is somebody who is effectively already in that role. And I think a lot of the statements he made should be interpreted as expressing ideas along the lines of Trump's foreign policy. And this is something that we've heard from other members of the incoming Trump administration as well, that one of the things that they really want to make as this is something the Biden administration didn't do that we are going to do is cracking down on the campus, particularly the campus protesters, but really any pro-Palestinian protesters in the U.S. They're conflating the

ideas of, oh, you're advocating for the Palestinians. You're inciting radicalization. You're trying to make people carry out attacks against the United States or become anti-Semitic. And we can't allow anti-Semitic speech. We can't allow this speech to exist. And so Mike Waltz made it very clear that, yeah, they are coming after pro-Palestinian protesters. I did not realize that his position does not require Senate confirmation. That's fascinating to me because he has the top, top secret clearance. He gets the same clearance that the president has with no FBI investigation. I have no reason to suspect that there's a problem in his personal or professional past,

but it's interesting that that job, the perks that it has with respect to top secret security clearance, but no FBI investigation and no Senate confirmation. Now, I'm the expert on the Constitution, but doesn't what you just described constitute the government evaluating the content of speech and punishing it because of its content and isn't the very purpose of the First Amendment to prevent that? Absolutely, Judge. And a lot of my understanding of the First Amendment didn't come from my public school education, which would probably now be telling students that, you know, we could restrict free speech in certain instances where it's going to incite radicalization, possibly or spread

disinformation. And so we have to add, but I read a lot of books written by you and they all explain very clearly that the rights of the first amendment include to speech that is unpopular speech. And in fact, that's really what the first amendment is meant to protect speech that goes against what the government narrative is and what the government wants to put out there, because that's exactly what the government would look to outlaw. Of course, you could have, you know, portent-free speech if you're saying exactly what the government wants you to say. They're not going to have any problem with that whatsoever. I was scandalized recently when, I won't mention his name, One of my former colleagues is still a personal friend of mine at Fox, wrote an editorial in the New York Post.

Well, you can imagine where this is going, the New York Post. But anyway, in that editorial, he said that the Trump administration should hold back research grants to professors who support the Palestinian cause. I mean, that is a case directly on point, which the courts, if they do their jobs, would prohibit. In the same comment that Mike Waltz made about suppressing speech, I don't think he was that specific about college campuses, but you did the research, so I accept what you said. He also referred to Israel as our ally. Is Israel an ally of the United States?

Well, that is the common refrain in Washington, right, that you always hear from congressmen, that not only is Israel an ally, that Israel is our greatest ally. Now, we don't have any explicit treaty with Israel, but that doesn't mean that Israel isn't effectively an ally of the United States, because we give Israel whatever they want, even when they directly go against what the U.S. says. For example, in October, the Biden administration wrote a letter to the Israelis saying that you have to allow at a minimum 350 aid trucks to enter Gaza each day. And in December, that number slumped to 71 trucks. So that's a fifth of what the Biden administration requested. And just this past week, the Biden administration authorized another $8

billion in weapons sales to Israel. So there's absolutely no consequences for what Israel does, and they get everything they want from the United States. So I'm not sure if that's actually an ally or just some kind of crazy abusive relationship. An alliance is bilateral. Without sounding too snarky or at the risk of sounding too snarky, what the hell do we get in return? Well, that's a good question. One of the things that we've gotten in the Middle East is Israel leading us into war after war, particularly looking at Iraq and Syria, where we waged wars that went against the direct interests of the American people.

We created an Islamic caliphate in Syria and Iraq in a policy that was benefiting and that Israel preferred because they preferred the Sunni in Syria to the Shia. So that's Bashar al-Assad. They preferred the Sunnis, which were the jihadists, that's Abu Mohammed al-Jalani, who now controls Syria. And so this policy has absolutely gone against the interests of the American people. Now there's some wants in Washington, D.C. who think that the interest of America is fracturing the Shia crescent and removing Bashar al-Assad from power, but that doesn't matter. Iran's influence in southern Lebanon doesn't matter to me or you. The only thing that really matters to me or you is the potential threat from blowback terrorism and

these Sunni jihadists who do look to conduct attacks in the United States of America, who now have a whole country under somebody who has a bin Ladenite ideology. This bin Ladenite ideology was promoted by MI6 and CIA, notwithstanding the British government, not the Starmer administration, but going way, I said I'll call it an administration, the Starmer government, but going way back. And the American government has characterized as a terrorist organization in which the two countries together put a $10 million bounty on his head. While the bounty was on his head, while he was cutting off the heads of other people

and cutting off their hands, we were training his fighters, giving them pep talk, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on them. Am I right? Yeah, that's absolutely right. This policy has gone on for well over a decade. And finally, they overthrew Bashar al-Assad. You know, Russia inserted a lot of military assets in 2015 to prevent this exact course from occurring. They tried to prop up Assad to prevent a Sunni jihadist from taking over. At the time, it looked like it would be al-Baghdadi, who was the leader of the Islamic Caliphate, ISIS, who, by the way, Jolani was his deputy. And when the two of them split, it was over Jolani wanting to, or excuse me, Baghdadi wanting to create Islamic Caliphate

that stretched from all the way from Raqqa in Syria to Mosul in Iraq, where Jolani was just concerned about regime change in Syria. And so ultimately, I guess both men got what they were striving for. Of course, Baghdadi's caliphate was ultimately destroyed. We'll see what happened to the country that Jolani has now gotten. But all that came with billions and billions of dollars of assistance from the United States government, and also a sanctions campaign on the Assad government, which prevents Syria from rebuilding or ever truly winning the war. Going back to the money going to Israel, Israel Is this $8 billion a gift from the United States government or a permitted sale for which Israel has to pay? Because my understanding is they don't pay for anything. So they announced it as a sale, but typically they'll announce the sale and then

later on they will announce that it's going to be covered, or at least a large portion of it's going to be covered with American foreign military finance funding. So we're likely going to get that announcement in the future. So Israel will order X, Y, and Z from Raytheon. Raytheon will the bill to israel israel will send the bill to the defense department the defense department will wait two years and then pay the bill with interest and the american public will not be any wiser is that is that the way this works kyle i think i lost you for just a second there, Judge. Okay. I was giving a hypothetical. Israel

will order $8 billion worth of equipment and ammunition from Raytheon. Raytheon will deliver it. Raytheon will send the bill to Israel. Israel will send the bill to the Pentagon. The Pentagon will pay it two years from now when nobody's the wiser. That's absolutely correct. And when we talk about this particular shipment, it's not weapons and equipment. It's all just munitions. We're talking about air-to-air missiles here, 250-pound bombs, small-diameter bombs, JDAM kits, which put guidance kits onto bombs and make them direct, hellfirefire missiles and artillery shells. And so many of these weapons, particularly the 250 and 500 pound bombs, have been used time and time

again in Gaza to kill civilians. The State Department has hundreds, at least 500 reports of American weapons, these bombs being used in Gaza to kill civilians, and they haven't taken action on any of it. Anytime they get one of these reports, they ask Tel Aviv about it, and the Israelis say, ah, we'll look into it. We think there was a member of Hamas there, and then they'll wipe their hands of it, and nobody will ever do anything about it. And so we're giving Israel weapons we know will be used to kill civilians and hit civilian targets. Donald Trump made two very troublesome statements, even dangerous statements in the past 72 hours. One is he referred to himself as Israel's best friend. The other is if the hostages, the Israeli hostages, he apparently doesn't care about the 10,000 Palestinian hostages, but if the Israeli hostages, now numbering about 100, are not released by Inauguration Day, quote, they'll be hell to pay, he wouldn't do so. How unimaginable would it be for U.S. troops to invade Gaza and be fighting side by side, shoulder to shoulder with Israeli troops?

The Israelis even want that. Yeah, I really doubt the Israelis would be interested in that, Judge. When we talk about the horrors that are going on in Gaza, things that the Israeli troops have talked about or recorded themselves doing and posted on social media, it's included killing civilians and leaving their bodies to be eaten by dogs, running over large numbers of people in tanks and other armored personnel vehicles, the intentional killing of civilians and shooting children, young children by snipers. And so if American troops are inserted into the combat zone, it may create a whole lot of witnesses to the genocide and the war crimes that Israel are committing that won't be so controlled by Tel Aviv. So I think the Israeli government would probably hesitate to have the Americans actually deploy military assets to Gaza. Now, will Trump maybe help Israel conduct bombing campaigns, provide more surveillance? Likely what Israel is going to be looking for is more bombs and particularly more large bombs,

the 2,000-pound bombs that at times the Biden administration has been more tentative to send to Israel. That's where I'm guessing that Israel is going to be looking for U.S. support when it comes to Gaza. I think overall, they're looking for U.S. support when it comes to fighting a war with Iran. Here's a clip from Donald Trump yesterday. Standing with him, I forget this fellow's name, but he's one of the billionaires that Trump has appointed to his new administration. This fellow, I believe, is going to replace Amos Hochstein as the president's personal envoy for negotiating in the Middle East. And that person is standing next to Donald Trump in this clip. Bear with me just a second here, Kyle. Here's the clip. Chris, cut number nine.

Do you think they're waiting for President Trump to take office? No, I think they heard him loud and clear. Better get done by the inaugural. But when you say all hell must be paid, all hell must be paid if they don't release the hostages. Do I have to define it for you? All hell will break out. If those hostages aren't back, I don't want to hurt your negotiation. If they're not back by the time I get into office, all hell will break out in the Middle East.

And it will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone. All hell will break out. I don't have to say anymore, but that's what it is. And they should have given him back a long time. They should have never taken him. If the deal isn't done before I take office, which is now going to be two weeks,

all hell will break out in the Middle East. Thank you, Mr. President. You've done a great job. Thank you. Mr. President. As if all hell has not already broken out, the gentleman with him is Stephen Witkoff, a billionaire, landlord, and real estate investor and donor to American Jewish causes, who now is becoming an overnight diplomat for the federal government, or the Trump administration. I wonder which side

he will be on when he negotiates with Hamas, Hezbollah, the people in Lebanon, the creeps in Syria, and the Israelis. Well, Judge, as you mentioned, all hell has really already broken out, particularly in the countries around Israel. I mean, look at what happened in Gaza, and of course, the invasion of southern Lebanon, and now the Israelis invasion of Syria. And so when Trump is making that threat, I think it's really a threat directed at the Iranians. And he's talking about all hell breaking loose in the entirety of the Middle East. And there was a recent report by ATSIOS, which, you know, some of their reporting is questionable, but they usually have good sources within the U.S. and the Israeli government.

And they are saying that there's a real possibility that Trump could go to war with Iran. Now, I guess I hope that this is Trump playing the same fire and fury card that he did with Kim Jong-un at the beginning of his last administration. And really, he's looking for diplomacy down the road. But that may not work with the Iranians. Engaging in this kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous, even if he doesn't plan to follow through with it. But I think a lot of his advisors and the people around him do really want a war with Iran. Going back to that interview that Mike Waltz gave, one of the things that he said is that there would be a philosophical change in the Trump administration and they would really go after Iran. And Trump has previously criticized Biden for not allowing the Israelis to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

So, you know, I think the real danger here is he's threatening Iran and actually thinking about going to war with the Islamic Republic. General Keith Kellogg, another non-confirmed by the Senate or not to be confirmed by the Senate emissary of the president, this one to Ukraine and Russia, has stated that if Russian President Putin doesn't come to the negotiating table quick enough and talk sincerely enough about a ceasefire, he can expect the United States to increase the amount of military equipment it sends to Ukraine. The president can't do that without congressional legislation. The Republicans will do almost anything he wants. However, these same Republicans, Mike Walts and Marco Rubio among them, who voted for the last tranche of aid to Ukraine said this is the last time. Does General Kellogg even know what he's talking about? Is this a dangerous, is this a window into a dangerous way for Donald Trump to be thinking? Yeah, Judge, I really do think it is.

And there's a few things here. One is that the Biden administration has flooded Ukraine with aid and they're planning to announce another multi-billion dollar aid package for Ukraine in the coming days. And they're hoping to get all those weapons to Ukraine before Trump takes office. So Ukraine will have a small stockpile of weapons. And also some of these weapons, I believe, are being transferred under NATO control for NATO to then dole out to Ukraine. So there may be some months that Ukraine does have military supplies. And also the Biden administration is saying there's going to be just over $2 billion left in congressionally approved funding to send arms to Ukraine after Trump takes office. So

Trump will have some ability to send weapons to Ukraine without further congressional funding if he chooses to do so. And that has been statements from his team. The Financial Times reported last month that Trump envisions a peace through strength ending to the war, which means the U.S. is going to continue to pump weapons into Ukraine, and that is what they believe is going to hold the ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Now, of course, I think that's going to be a non-starter for the Russians and prevent any deal from ever happening. This is about as smart as taking over Greenland and thinking that the Russians would let you do so. If you look at the polar ice cap, you'll see how close that is to Russia.

Kyle Ancelone, always a pleasure, my friend. You have such a broad knowledge and such great research skills. Keep those great articles coming. You may enjoy my piece tomorrow at Antiwar.com called Killing the Constitution at Gitmo, More Nonsense at Guantanamo Bay. Kyle Anzalone, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.

Coming up later today at two o'clock, Aaron Mate. At three o'clock, the great Phil Giraldi. And at 4.30, the always worth waiting for, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. You won't believe who quoted a speech by the great peacemaker, Jeffrey Sachs. We'll leave it hanging there until 4.30. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.