Judging Freedom - Kyle Anzalone: Ukraine's Daring Strike on Russia: A Dangerous Game!

Episode Date: June 3, 2025

Kyle Anzalone: Ukraine's Daring Strike on Russia: A Dangerous Game!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025. Kyle Anzalone will be with us, Kyle of the Libertarian Institute and antiwar.com and of his own very intriguing podcast, the Kyle and Zolone show just what happened between the United States and Ukraine over the weekend. But first this while the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring! In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce. I'm so glad I bought my gold, it's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more

in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world, they are falling in value. Big money is in panic, as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.

As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep.

There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620. 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgen nap dot com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Kyle always a pleasure my dear friend welcome back to Judging Freedom and congratulations on your own podcast which is intriguing informative challenging and I invite our viewers and listeners to tune tune in on to it. Thank you very much and thanks for having me back.

Sure, of course. This event over the weekend, who knows the level of American involvement? There are reports that Secretary Hegseth watched it happen in real time. It's almost inconceivable that the American Intel did not know about it. But when American intelligence and European intelligence help NATO attack Russia, isn't that ultimately dangerous to American national security as well as European?

Well, yes, it's extremely dangerous for us, the American people who this risk escalating to direct war between NATO and Russia, which would ultimately go nuclear and could devastate the entire planet. And it's absolutely absurd to think about. But when you have these massive coordinated attacks going on where at least some number of Russia's strategic bombers

were damaged, some destroyed in this Ukrainian attack. That's really what the West is flirting with by doing what they're doing in supporting Ukraine to the extent that they're supporting Ukraine. As you say, it's inconceivable that Washington didn't know what Ukraine was doing here. An 18 months intelligence operation in the SBU, which is a Ukrainian intelligence agency that was essentially, you know, restarted by the CIA after the 2014 us coup in Ukraine.

And this has been documented in the New York times how, you know, we selected agents to be in that agency and we train them. And so obviously the CIA knew what was going on. And I'm sure that Donald Trump himself did. You know, it's interesting. I was going to ask you about Trump. I I'm being told by our Intel experts that maybe did, maybe didn't, meaning maybe the CIA intentionally didn't tell him so he'd have plausible deniability with his old friend of Vladimir Putin. Maybe they did tell him and he's an accomplished liar and can call Putin

crazy at the same time he's doing crazy things. What does your gut tell you about whether the president saw it, whether Pete Hagseth viewed it, whether the CIA and MI6 orchestrated it. All right, that's a multiple part question. You've answered about the CIA and MI6. But what did the United States know and when did it know it? Yes, Judge, I am sure that Trump knew about this. And I won't be surprised if he was supportive of it. In recent days, he's complained a lot about Russia striking Ukrainian cities. And

Trump, you know, says he's America first. And sometimes this means his rhetoric sounds anti war, certainly anti interventionist, you know, just about supporting the United States and not wasting a whole bunch of money in Ukraine. But he also always says peace through strength and things that the way he gets an upper hand at the negotiating table is by making threats and inflicting blows on the other side. And so I think in Donald Trump's kind of work perception of how the world works, this is actually getting Ukrainians a better deal when in reality, I think the Ukrainians are really going to suffer for this. Sure, they'll be partying at the NATO headquarters and in Washington, all the spooks

will be high-fiving about this with their people in Congress. But the people of Ukraine will suffer because I'm sure Russia is going to rain down hell. And this may push the Kremlin away from negotiating with Ukraine at all. Wow. I mean, I don't know how the United States can ever trust. I don't know how the Kremlin can ever trust Washington. Uh, again, if Donald Trump is complaining, the Vladimir Putin won't enter into a ceasefire. Donald Trump says he wants to talk to him directly and Donald Trump's agents with Donald Trump's knowledge are planning an attack and attack on Russia.

Can you imagine how we would react if the Russians plan such an attack on American military bases in the United States? Right. Of course there would be a massive reaction. I think fortunately for the time that Putin has been in power in Russia and Sergey Lavrov has been the foreign minister Russia has largely been in position a weakness relative to the United States and this has forced the Kremlin to take a very Realistic viewpoint and standpoint in the world and so I don't think the Kremlin is going to overreact here But I do think we're going to see a major escalation from Russia in response to this attack. And, you know, fortunately we do have real statesmen, as you know, by Sergey

Lavrov, in positions of power in Russia to hopefully steer this ship away from a direct Russia-NATO war. Here's that brilliant diplomat from South Carolina, Senator Graham, I'm being sarcastic of course, yesterday saying, oh, we've got to do something because he, Lindsey Graham, is fed up with Vladimir Putin. We saw credible evidence of a summer early fall invasion, a new offensive by Putin. He's playing the game at the peace table. He's preparing for more war. And I think the Senate is fed up with Putin.

The American people see Putin as unreasonable. They see Ukraine as trying. President Trump has made that distinction real. So the Senate and the House of Representatives in the next two weeks will be moving forward with a sanction bill that's bone-crushing. I guess the sanctions of which he speaks are secondary sanctions. They're actually going to sanction China and India because they're buying oil from Russia. I just don't know where that's going to get them.

Back to the actual attack. Do we know how badly Russia suffered? I know Colonel Davis has said many planes. Alistair Crooks says it's just a few. And Western media, which is in cahoots with the CIA and MI6 exaggerating the success of this Right. Well Russia has admitted to some damaged planes in these attacks and saying that at least two of the

There's I think a total of five air bases that were attacked and two of those attacks were successful they say on two of the air bases the attack was repelled but At least some I really don't know the Ukrainians. I think say 41 which is about a third of Russia's fleet of strategic bombers, so it not even half But this is certainly going to be an expensive fits for Russia Not only are they going to have to repair these planes and maybe build some new planes to replace them But also is going to require probably some massive upgrades at its air bases to defend against future similar attacks

Chris put up the CNN strike map if you would this is a CNN product, but it appears to be Accurate and obviously I'm giving them credit for it, but you can see how deep into Russia they struck. Murmansk on the on the northern border, Belaya, which is 2500 miles from Ukraine. Were all four of these areas hit as far as you know? from Ukraine. Were all four of these areas hit as far as you know? Like I said, I believe they claimed five, there are attacks on five air bases and three of those attacks were repelled. And I believe it was at the northern and eastern air bases there, the ones furthest from the front lines where the attacks actually successfully made it through.

What do you think Vladimir Putin does? He must be under enormous pressure to react emotionally and he's known, as you know, we've talked about this, for being reserved, composed, restrained, and patient. Right, well hopefully his personality continues in that direction, but if you look at statements from Russia, the Russian media, they are saying that this is why it was a mistake to keep the operations in Ukraine as this special military operation, which doesn't mean a lot in the West, but in Russia means this. It really isn't a full scale invasion of Ukraine, that this is a relatively minor war that they are waging.

Does it become a full-scale invasion of Ukraine? I'm not sure how Putin responds to this. I'm sure he's going to significantly step up the attacks. I believe Monday, Sunday night into Monday, saw one of the largest Russian attacks on Ukraine as the number of drones that they tried to hit the Ukrainians with, well over 400. So the war is going to continue to escalate. I'm not sure if Putin is willing to rebrand it or not. It may depend on how he sees that playing in the Russian public. You know, before this happened, Fox had reported that the Russians had amassed 50,000 troops at the northern part of

the border between Ukraine and Russia. Colonel McGregor says that's incorrect. It's 100,000 troops ready to mobilize. That would be 100,000 troops. I would think that would be a massive land invasion. I don't know if this is going to happen in light of what we're talking about, but that would be a massive land invasion. Would it not? I don't know if this is going to happen in light of what we're talking about, but that would be massive. Would it not? It would be a massive invasion and a massive escalation to the Russian attack. I think there is a difference when Russia would declare a full scale conflict as far as mobilization of young men, general conscription, things like that.

So that's why I think Putin may not go down that road and fully rebranding into full-scale escalation, but they're certainly ready to escalate this conflict and have been for some time. Wow. Let me change the subject ever so slightly to an area that you and I are both interested in to an area that you and I are both interested in, the freedom of speech. Who could not be interested in freedom of speech? But you and I comment on it from a very libertarian perspective. The president of the graduating class of MIT

was prohibited from attending her own graduation today because over the weekend she gave an informal talk arguing in favor of a Palestinian state. How could a university that accepts federal funds and agrees basically to comply with the Bill of Rights possibly punish someone like this for exercising the freedom of speech? Well, Judge, I guess the ironic part of that is that MIT is likely doing this in an effort to keep

their federal funds and to appease the federal government, who Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State and other cabinet-level members, are on an all-out warpath against institutions in the United States that are perceived to be too pro-Polestinian and not in favor of the massive USAID packages that we constantly give to Israel time after time after time. And so yeah, I think MIT is doing this essentially to stay off Trump's list where he's going to go after you and try to remove funds like he's done with Harvard and Columbia. So the state of Massachusetts has a public accommodations law. It and New Jersey's, I've written about this years ago when I was on the bench, it and New Jersey's are the most expansive in the union.

And those public accommodation laws, which define the open part of a campus as those public accommodation laws, which define the open part of a campus as a public accommodation, certainly where the MIT graduation occurred would be on that part of the campus. We're not talking about the president's office, we're not talking about a dorm room, we're not talking about a cafeteria or a classroom,

we're talking about an open public space to which you and onto which you and I could walk. That area is devoted to the freedom of speech. So MIT obviously violated not only federal law but state law in an effort to please the White House so it doesn't come down on MIT the way it came down on Harvard, which brings us back to the whole purpose of the First Amendment, which is to keep the government out of the business of evaluating the content of speech. Yeah, unfortunately, we've been on this path for a long time in the United States of America

and just like other administrations before, the Trump administration is really taking this to a new and very disturbing level level where Marco Rubio is announcing that for students to get visas coming into the United States one of the things is they can't have anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian social media posts and so this is a complete my mind control attempt by the federal government to censor who is even allowed into the United States of America and able to study on our college campuses. Do they censor American students? Freedom of speech? I don't know if this

president of the graduating class of MIT was American. It shouldn't make any difference. I mean the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, the fifth amendment guaranteeing due process, the fourth amendment guaranteeing the right to be left alone. These are guarantees to the person, not to an American. I don't think Marco Rubio and his colleagues and Kristi Noem understand that, but that's the law. Well, we know for a fact Kristi Noem doesn't understand the Constitution because the last time she

tried to explain it, she made a fool of herself. Right. Yeah. I mean, there's a bunch of just not very bright people in the Trump administration making these decisions. And so far, at least all the cases that I can recall, it seems that the people most who are having their speech most suppressed at this point are foreign students studying in the United States are green card holders, you know, people who are legally here in the United States on a permanent basis, who are who are the ones suffering from this policy who are being

arrested. But just because it's first the immigrant, somebody that the Trump administration, Trump said that we're going to target criminal illegals and that is part of how he was elected to be president. So he feels like he has a real political mandate here. And I can certainly see it expanding to the Americans down the road. We've already seen Americans including some of the guests on your very program face harassment under the Trump administration. Right.

You know, I never thought I'd see the day that I was defending public accommodations laws because they're really an invasion of private property. So I'm a graduate of Princeton University, as you know, in the old days before Princeton got federal funds, and before there was a public accommodations law in New Jersey, it could exclude anybody from the campus that it wanted to because it's private property. It's like you excluding somebody from

your backyard. You don't have to give a reason. You own the yard. You have the right to exclude. But along with the liberal intelligentsia in legislatures and along with the federal largesse and the strings attached to it, the universities have given up their private property rights unless it's to further the ideological views of whoever's in the White House or whoever's writing you the biggest checks. Right, Judge. And I, like yourself, find myself a little bit surprised that, you know, when they're talking about cutting funds to Harvard and Columbia as a libertarian, this seems like something I would support. You know, these are institutions with billions of dollars in their accounts, and they can certainly fund their own operations. You know, they get a lot of money from the US government and different grants and contracts including from the Department of Defense. But this is this money is only being withheld. It's not that the Trump administration is really looking to cut the budget. They're just looking to enact punishments on institution that aren't sufficient sufficiently towing the line on US foreign policy.

And they're trying to get everybody else in line and make an example of Harvard and Columbia. And it looked like it was happening in MIT. It appears to be working. Right. Right. Another let down is Tulsi Gabbard, who of course though a Democrat had a wonderful libertarian record when it came to warrantless spying. When she was in the House of Representatives. Last week she announced that she is centralizing the data seized without warrants. I can't believe and believe that they talk this way centralizing the data seized without warrants

so American spy agencies don't have to knock on the door of each other in order to get it. We need to know what Angela own said to Napolitano on the phone last night, which of you was spying on it? They don't have to do that anymore. They go to this central location and now they can get it. So this lady who we all thought was against warrantless spying is now making it easier for the spies. That's right. And this is a massive breach

of everybody's fourth amendment rights. Let's say that the CIA is even spying on somebody thinking they're having communications with somebody overseas plotting some kind of attack. And then the FBI has that information and is investigating you for domestic crimes that they have no warrant for. And yet because other NSA, CIA collected, other domestic police agencies are going to

use that. The federal government is working on a massive contract right now with Palantir, one of these or defense contracting organizations set up by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp and they've worked with Israel in the IDF. And what they're doing is they have this big program called Boundary and it organizes and collects all the data. And so let's say you give data to the Social Security Administration, even your bank account information and things like that, which is at times required, then all these other agencies are going to have access to it. The Department of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the IRS. And so these are massive

breaches of our rights we're talking about by the government sharing all of this information. It's also important to note that a lot of these intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, already buy a lot of our information, which I'm sure they're going to share with the other intelligence agencies now. So they'll purchase your information from Meta or other major tech firms. Kyle, a pleasure to speak with you, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Congratulations on the podcast. I hope you'll come back and visit with us again soon. Thank you so much for having me, Judge. Of course, of course. And coming up tomorrow, Wednesday at 11 o'clock in the morning, Colonel Douglas McGregor at two in the afternoon,

Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski at three in the afternoon, our old buddy, Phil Giraldi, MUSIC you