Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: Snowden, Assange, and Freedom of Speech.

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

Matt Hoh: Snowden, Assange, and Freedom of Speech.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. so so Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 30th, 2024. Matt Ho is with us in just a moment on the freedom of speech in America. And is it being suppressed from Israel? But first this.

How do you really feel about your financial future right now today? Stable or uncertain? Despite all the happy talk that the Fed and the banks want you to buy into, I believe that 2024 is going to be a very unstable year politically and financially. That's one of the reasons I decided to buy physical gold and silver. And I suggest you should do the same and do it now. Why? Because throughout times of economic uncertainty, gold and silver have rightly earned a reputation for stability. Owning precious metals has made me feel more stable and it can do the same for you. Reach out to my friends at Lear Capital and get their free wealth protection

guides. You can reach them at 800-511-4620. Lear has earned an excellent reputation by helping thousands of customers just like you move portions of their retirement savings into Lear gold and silver IRAs. It's easy to do and it's tax and penalty free. Don't be caught off guard. Experts predict the markets may tank again. You'll be happy if you have protection in place. So call Lear at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Hi, Matt. Welcome back to the show, my dear friend. Your time and your analysis is always

so much appreciated. Does the federal government behave as if it has an obligation to protect the freedom of speech, or does it simply only want to protect and hear the speech that pleases it? It seeks to protect the speech and, more importantly, the interests of those who are in power, right? So it is devoted to the concepts of free speech, but more so it is actually devoted towards the reality of protecting those who are in power and those whose interests keep those in power. So basically you're talking about the donor class. Those are the ones who have actual free speech. It's articulated and it's trumpeted through a mainstream media of legacy print, as well as cable news that dominates the media space in the US, which is of course changing, as we all know, thankfully, but that is the tool that they utilize to ensure

that their speech, their message is what is heard by Americans and anything that runs counter to that is dangerous. So it's not just a question, Judge Wright, of the people in power, their self-righteousness being insulted, their entitlement being offended, and that's why they want to crush the free speech. But it's because they see how dangerous these ideas are, how dangerous the truth is. Of course, you know, exemplified by the man over my shoulder, Julian Assange. But this idea of what's happening on the campuses around the United States, on these college campuses, this idea that somehow if people start hearing this, if this truth starts to be spread, this is very dangerous for those and those who we seek to protect and, you know,

first and foremost are the interests of Israel. And yet free speech is the great freedom. It is the freedom without which we would never have separated from Great Britain if the colonists couldn't sing their songs in taverns and distribute their pamphlets and issue their broadsides and listen to their sermons and eventually state legislatures enacting state versions of the Declaration of Independence and then the Continental had done in the 1770s what the Texas state troopers did at the University of Texas last week, what the NYPD did at Columbia University last week, what the Atlanta police did at Emory last week,

we'd all be bowing to Charles III today. Well, I'll disagree with you on that, Judge, because they did it to a degree, right? They did the Boston Massacre. And what did that do? That rallied those in favor of independence for Britain. That encapsulated and that exhibited just exactly what those who were striving for independence were clamoring about, what we're going on about. They have shown you who they really are. This is what we've been talking about. And I think that's the case, what you're seeing here. If they had just left these kids on the college campuses alone, if they had just ignored them, this would be something that

you and I wouldn't be talking about. These camps would not be attracting the attention of the entire world because we're seeing solidarity camps standing up all throughout the world in support of American college students who, of course, are doing this in support of the people of Palestine. But what they're so afraid of, the danger of this, is this is why speech is the premier freedom, not just because of the idea of the liberty of expressing your views, of having your own degree of intellectual and moral honesty and being allowed to articulate that, but because it is so powerful, right? And so what with this, this danger of speech is that it can excite people. It can mobilize people. It informs people. And when you are what the empire is, built upon lies, built upon violence, built upon a immoral past history, the most dangerous thing you can have arrayed against you is the

honest explanation of what the empire actually is. And what it is right now, explained best, is by this genocide in Gaza. And that terrifies those who are in power. That terrifies those who are in the various elite groupings of the empire, including the major media. And so that's one of the reasons why I think we've seen, Judge, the major media flock to this story in an attempt to tarnish the college students, right, to tarnish the professors and the faculty, to claim that these are anti-Semitic mobs when we all know it's the furthest thing from that. You and I are exactly on the same page. The violence was caused by the government. I mean, we ran a clip. This is horrible. Maybe we'll run it again. We can't run the video or I'll take it down. But we ran a clip, just a still, of an economics professor

at Emory University walking across campus to deliver a lecture. She recognizes one of her students on the ground with his hands tied behind his back with a zip tie. She goes over to ask the student, are you okay? A cop about three times her size tackles her. She screams, I'm a professor, I'm a professor. I'm looking after one of my students. He manhandles her and ties her up. We'll show you the picture right now. It's the government that's causing the violence. Chris, do you want to put that up? Get on the ground! Oh, my God! Oh, my God!

Give me some cups! My head! My head! My head! I'm a concrete! Oh, my God! You people are fascists! You are Hitler! You are a happy dog! Shame on you!

May you never have another day! I am a professor! Notice his uniform. Ritter pointed this out. He's got sergeant stripes, so he's been around for a while and presumably has been trained and should know what he's doing. If you heard her screaming, he pushed her head against the concrete. I don't know how many instances like this occurred,

but there was no violence in Texas until a hundred Texas Rangers showed up on horseback. That's a government school. There was no violence at Columbia until the NYPD showed. There was such a reaction in the New York metropolitan area. The mayor said the police are not coming on campus anymore because the government is afraid of speech that will irritate its donors, as you just pointed out. And why is Julian Assange in jail? Because he exposed a painful truth that the government didn't want to hear. Why is Edward Snowden in Moscow? Because he revealed painful truths that the government couldn't respond to using the freedom of speech. Right. Why they want to ban TikTok. Right. I mean, like these are all extensions.

When you are when your policies, when who you are is predicated upon lies, the only recourse you have to defend yourself is violence. And we're seeing that there is no way any of these municipalities, let alone the federal no way any of these municipalities, let alone the federal government, can meet these students, can meet these faculties on their own terms. They cannot approach them. They cannot confront them. They cannot debate them because they are resting. Their foundation is all lies. And so they have to resort to some violence. They have to send in state troopers. They have to send in Texas Rangers. They have to bounce the heads of college professors off of concrete. I mean, we've seen video of this and photos of this from across the country. This is how

the system, this is how the Leviathan is reacting to a threat because it knows it's a very real threat. It knows from history because we saw how, say, popular movements like this, whether the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, how successful they were, but they're also confronted with, you know, Judge, what we're doing here right now, right?

And today, Ryan Grim at The Intercept published a study that they put together. The only people in the United States who do not believe that Israel is committing a genocide are those who are watching cable news. If you're getting your news from social media, if you're getting your news from YouTube or from podcasts, if you're getting your news from print, whether it be an actual newspaper or reading it online, you understand the war crimes. You understand the moral horror that Israel is committing. If you're only getting your news from cable news, you don't believe a genocide is occurring.

And that's what they're terrified of because there's all these other avenues for people to understand the world around them. And that goes against what the people in power, their donors and the overall empire, you know, that that is very dangerous to them. You know, you mentioned TikTok. It's so strange. Biden championed the legislation, signed the legislation. Of course, his campaign uses TikTok almost every day. However, the legislation is really, really, really dangerous because it gives the president of the United States, whoever it may be, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, whoever it might be in the future, the power to ban any social media

platform that the president decides is owned by foreign interests adverse to the United States. So they'll starting with TikTok and where will they go next? Let's see. Rupert Murdoch's Australian. When I worked there, he owned Fox. Could Joe Biden deplatform Fox? He wouldn't because they happen to be with him on all these issues, but could he deplatform Fox because it was owned by foreign interests, which in his view are adverse to the United States. This is insane and moronic, the attitude that the government has toward the freedom of speech. Let me skip it. Let me- It's self-preservation, Judge. It's self-preservation. And I want to say that, you know, you can speak about this much better than I can, but this assault on the First Amendment,

it has to go in parallel with the assault on the First Amendment, it has to go in parallel with the assault on the Fourth Amendment. So the fact that you have this ban on TikTok being passed the same week as the authorization for warrantless spying on Americans. I talked to four people overseas last week, Judge, right? I mean, so that means now that just in that span of time, the NSA, CIA, FBI, North Carolina State Police, you know, they are able to utilize the fact that I spoke to somebody overseas as a reason to now just investigate me, to look into to spy on me, but also to to spy on all my acquaintances, because, you know, right. It's degrees of separation that they justify this with. And part of that, and you wrote about this very well, was the fact that.

The this authorization, this this FISA authorization that allows for the spying by the government, it now extends to include requiring those who have Wi-Fi routers, those who are running fiber optic cable into your house, I'm assuming any type of telecommunication provider, including if you're just in a coffee shop someplace using their Wi-Fi, to open up their systems to allow the government to spy on those people. I mean, so the greed that we're seeing here is just absolutely enormous. And this has all got to do with how fearful they are. So as dangerous as it is for us, perhaps we should remember how dangerous this is for the government. This is why they're reacting, why we just have to keep pushing harder, keep fighting harder, stand in solidarity with those

students and faculty at the college campuses, right? Do everything we can to keep pushing because the system is feeling the stress and we should expect not just this type of crackdown on our civil liberties, but increased crackdown on our civil liberties for them to become more violent. But it's because I believe we are winning. So think of it this way. The freedom of speech is public speech. The Fourth Amendment is private speech. The government assaults both at the same time. And the Congress, I don't know what the intelligence community shows them in secret.

I don't know what they showed Mike Johnson. But whatever it is, we don't get to see it. Nobody challenges it. And it gets enough of these folks to vote along with big government and the surveillance state all the time. Should the ICC, the International Criminal Court, indict Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet, even though Israel did not sign the Treaty of Rome, which establishes the court. Of course, the U.S., China, Russia, and North Korea, interesting combination, also didn't sign the Treaty of Rome. Should Bibi be indicted? Should his worst fears come to pass? Absolutely. Absolutely, Judge. I mean,

the precedent's been set. I mean, no clearer precedent than this, than the indictment last year of Vladimir Putin. You know, Russia's not as signatory, as you just said, to the ICC, but they indicted Vladimir Putin anyhow. I think there's only, this is what has to happen. These international institutions adherence to not just international law, but also federal law. And Politico was reporting today that about 90 attorneys, including 20 who are active attorneys with the U.S. government, sending a letter to the Biden administration saying, look, you are in stop sending these weapons to Israel. You're a clear violation of the law. So we have to continue to strengthen everything that we have in our power, whether it be international law, federal law, the U.S. Constitution. And one of those things is to uphold it and hold accountable those who are clearly and brutally violating, you know, the international order, international law, but most especially through these war crimes. So how can you have an international criminal court if it doesn't indict Netanyahu and Galant and the others? Then it needs to cease existing existing it needs to go away because if it does not function as it's meant to function at this moment right now it should just never function again it's utterly worthless otherwise here's a prime minister netanyahu

uh 40 minutes ago we may be the first to reveal this, you'll hear him lamenting about the International Criminal Court. You have to hear this to believe this. The International Criminal Court in The Hague is contemplating issuing arrest warrants against senior Israeli government and military officials as war criminals. This would be an outrage of historic proportions. International bodies like the ICC arose in the wake of the Holocaust committed against the Jewish people.

They were set up to prevent such horrors, to prevent future genocides. Yet now, the International Court is trying to put Israel in the dock. It's trying to put us in the dock as we defend ourselves against genocidal terrorists and regimes, Iran of course, that openly works to destroy the one and only Jewish state. Branding Israel's leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of anti-Semitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world. Can't seem to get off his antipathy to the expressions of free speech on the campuses.

I'll let you comment on it. And then we have Biden's crazy, incompetent spokesperson at the State Department attempting to explain this away also. Right. Any accusation that Bibi Netanyahu is not a good politician, of course, is pretty unfounded. He knows how to speak to his constituencies. That's what he's doing right there. He's not addressing you or I, Judge. He's not trying to change anyone's mind.

He's just trying to establish and reinforce the foundation of support he has within Israel, as well as within the United States and to a lesser degree Europe. But this idea of a fortress Israel, we are besieged as well as bringing in the historical, the cosmic aspects of this. This is what has always happened to our people. This was set up this way to protect Jews. And now, of course, is being used against Jews. Right. I mean, so you see in his rhetoric, you see in those statements, a genius, if you will, for knowing who he's speaking to. And that will get his base out,

whether that base is in Israel or, you know, probably more importantly for what he was just talking about there in the U.S., particularly his base in the Congress, his base in the major American media, which is pretty much all of those two institutions, right? He is giving them what they need to move forward with some type of righteous indignation to stamp out this expression of free speech. I mean, and the whole, what's so remarkable about all that this is what are these students and faculty protesting about? They're protesting a genocide. And yet, you know, what is all the commentary about? It's about anti-Semitism. So Benjamin Netanyahu is very skilled at playing this messaging game

and of making sure that his people, whether it be in Congress or in the media, have what they need to continue their assault in support of the genocide, right? Which then takes the form, as we've been talking about, assaults on of the genocide, right, which then takes the form, as we've been talking about, assaults on American civil liberties, you know, the First Amendment. Here's the State Department spokesperson being questioned just a few minutes ago. In fact, I believe this presser is going on even as we speak, being questioned about the very clip that we just showed you of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Thank you.

I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict, but I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, branding Israel's leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of anti-Semitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world. Do you agree with that assessment that it's anti-Semitic for the ICC to

pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the – to this protest? MR PRICE So fundamentally at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that's what the crux here. Beyond that, I'd let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments, but the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work, important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular instance, in this particular instance, I'm sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.

What he's talking about. So if the potential defendant is in a country that did not sign the treaty or there's no jurisdiction. Unless we hate the potential defendant, like Vladimir Putin will give you all the evidence you want with which to prosecute him. Well, and their argument, Judge, this is why you get to the point where you say, what are we going to do? Because we're dealing with people like the American government, you know, personified by Vandana Patel there, who are so easy with their lying, who lie so readily and so quickly. Again, that's why they're so scared about these demonstrations of support for Palestine. The idea that somehow the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction, Palestine is a member state of the ICC. That's all that's needed. But even so, the precedent that was

set last year where neither Ukraine nor Russia are members of the ICC, Ukraine did accept jurisdiction, but neither are members. Well, that precedent's been set for when they indicted Vladimir Putin. So, I mean, the willingness of these people just to lie, Judge, you know, it's a real issue for us. How do we confront these people? How do we deal with these people when you're just going to be up against people who are just, in effect, brutes? That's all they have. All they have is their thuggery. All they have is their violence. And all they have is the money that's behind them. Other than that, they are completely bankrupt. They are decrepit. They are rotten. They are corrupted. And, you know, I mean, that's what we're up against here. And we have to continue to organize. We have to continue to do

just exactly what you're doing, what all of the folks who come on this program doing, everyone who's watching, and most especially those people who are going out and supporting the pro-Palestine demonstrations, as well as doing everything they can to support the people of Palestine. But it is, this is a real problem we have, because how do we deal with people like Benden Patel when he's just going to lie right to your face? I wish that the reporters were more aggressive with him. They won't call on Max Blumenthal, who's often in that audience, would be as aggressive as you or I if we were there. Well, knowing Max, maybe even more so.

Right. What happens if Netanyahu's government does invade Rafah and slaughters another 35,000 innocents? Yeah. What happens? what happens yeah i mean you know you have to wonder what are the arab states do at this point what are the arab states doing there's a much ado right now because tony blinken is over in the middle east he was just in saudi arabia supposedly today they are the united states was going to announce what the incentives were going to be for the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel, which of course we all know what it's going to be. It's going to be a

lot more weapons, including nuclear technology and some type of security guarantee so that Saudi Arabia would essentially be an ally to the U.S. just as, say, Korea or Japan are. But what happens after that? Israel goes in and does to Rafah what they've already done in Gaza City and Khan Yunus and Dar al-Bala, what we know they're going to do, what they've said they're going to do. And today, Netanyahu said, regardless of whether there's a ceasefire or not, we're going into Rafah. So they're there. They've indicated clearly they're going to destroy it. What comes from that, though, in a sense of what are the Arab states going to do? We know what the American government's going to do. The American government's going to continue to send weapons to Israel and do everything they can to protect Israel, just like we were talking about with the ICC. But what do the Arab states

do? And then what does the rest of the world do? And, you know, that is the question that I think many of us are looking for. We're looking for other nations to take the lead on this, you know, that is the question that I think many of us are looking for, looking for other nations to take the lead on this, you know, and do something, form some type of block to completely isolate Israel. Remember that go back 40 years and the embargo, the sanctions, the actions against South Africa. The United States, of course, was the last one standing with South Africa. The White House, of course, was the last one standing with South Africa. The White House, of course, was the last one standing. Ronald Reagan vetoing the Congress's sanctions against South Africa to protect the white apartheid regime there. So we can expect that the American Congress and the White House will do the same with the Jewish apartheid regime in Tel Aviv. But what is the rest of the world going to do? Is

it going to allow itself to be bullied? Is it going to continue to follow the brutes, the thugs, the liars of the Biden administration and the Israeli government? Or will it actually do something the rest of the world like it did in the 80s when it stood up to the U.S. and made South Africa change. Here's the only foreign minister that we have found speaking out against what's going on in Gaza. This is the foreign minister of Norway just the other day, number seven, Chris. We are now living in the time of a deep crisis of the credibility of the institutions that we have. And I think this has been exacerbated

by the crisis in Gaza and by the inability by many Western countries, I would argue not Norway, but many of our colleagues who have hesitated to use the same type of language against violations of international humanitarian law, for instance, that we easily apply when they are violated by Russia in Ukraine. When it comes to Gaza, we have not been able to see the same type of response against – it is a different case because, of course, it was – the first act was the Hamas attack on Israel. But the way Israel has conducted the war has also been very problematic in light of global norms. And if we don't call out that, it comes back and haunts even the argument on Ukraine.

That was the World Economic Forum yesterday. Surprised to hear that. I don't know where Norway fits in all of this, but it was refreshing to hear that in English from the foreign minister of a sovereign country. I'm sure Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, another Norwegian will say something to completely ruin that sentiment. But, you know, getting back to the Arab states though, Judge, right? And what type of pressure can their own publics and will their own publics exert on them? I mean, all of those states, all those monarchies have faced challenges in my lifetime, very real challenges, very real coup attempts. And I mean, this idea

that perhaps many of them are on a balance beam, they're on thin ice themselves in some degrees. So will the people cause such pressure to threaten the rule of some of these monarchs based upon, say, the destruction in the, you know, particularly, say, if Israel goes forward past the destruction of Rafah into continuing its ethnic cleansing campaign? You know, there's a story today that the pier that the American military is starting to build off of Gaza, well, it's already doubled in cost. So where it was supposed to be about $150 million are now saying it's going to be $320 million just for the first few months and then whatever costs after that. Well, we know that's going to double again and probably double

after that as well. That's how these things work. But we have to be reminded that what was said about that pier initially by the Israelis was that it could be used to deport Palestinians. And so if there's a successful destruction of Rafah, making Gaza completely uninhabitable, that is their plan, is to deport Palestinians. What will the Arab states do in response to that? You know, Chris just reminded me, the clip we ran of the Norway foreign minister, he wasn't on the stage, but he was in the audience, Tony Blinken. I don't know where this leads. It just seems to be getting worse and worse. You know, it's almost graduation time for colleges. So I think a lot of these things happening on college campuses will soon die down, but it'll be reconstituted in Chicago for the Democratic National Committee. This is shades of 1968 all over again.

That's right, Judge. And whether it's domestically, this idea that this is only going to continue, particularly on the campaign trail, everywhere Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go, they should be terrorized by pro-Palestine demonstrators, people who are in solidarity with the Palestinian people who are against genocide. And the same thing, like you just said, culminating at the conventions, just like 68. The violence is only going to increase. And overseas, where does this go? You know, we could just continue to talk about that. You know, one of the things about this deal, about getting Saudi Arabia to normalize relations

with Israel, there's a lot of nuclear technology that's going into that deal, supposedly. Right. So one of the things that comes out of this is possibly expanded nuclear powers throughout the Middle East. I mean, so there's just so many ways that this can continue to deteriorate because we do not have leadership that has the moral or intellectual honesty to make a decision to preclude these very dangerous consequences. Moral and intellectual honesty. That is the phrase of the era in which we are living now, dear Matt. And it just doesn't seem to exist in these governments. Thank you very much for your time, as always. Look forward to seeing you again next week, my friend. All right.

Thanks, Judge. Of course. Coming up at three o'clock on many of these similar topics, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.