Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi : TRUMP: The Presidency That Broke Everything

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

Phil Giraldi : TRUMP: The Presidency That Broke EverythingSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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? 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 Thursday, January 23rd, 2006 Phil Giraldi. joins us now. Certainly freedom is in great danger these days. It seems like every time we turn around some other crazy, unconstitutional, immoral thing is happening. But we'll get to as much of it as we can. Phil, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for accommodating my schedule. How did CIA, MI6, and Mossad blow it in the streets of Iran in the past two weeks? Well, I think it's a question of those organizations thought they had the game in hand. And in a way they really didn't.

Going back even to my time and the government, what those groups that you're, those organizations you're talking about were doing, they were feeding off of minority groups inside Iran. And people are not generally aware of just how many small ethnic groups and religious groups exist in the country of Iran. And these groups were the ones that were targeted by the intelligence services. So, you know, you target these groups and they only have a certain access and a certain capability. And I think they overshot it. They thought they had it in hand. They thought they would bring about this revolution in the streets that eventually would impact on the government,

but it kind of didn't have enough fuel in the tank. Some of our colleagues on this program have argued that these three intelligence agencies, CIA, MI6, and Mossad made the cardinal. error of relying too much on exiles, the opinion of exiles, people who have this fanciful of view that the Shah is going to come back, or in this case the Shah's son. And these people are blinded by hatred and blinded by ideology and often don't have accurate intel. Does that make sense to you? Oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense. I mean, and that's going kind of along with what I just said. The Shah is, does

not, did not, and the son does not, did not have that kind of access to real policymakers to people with real power in Iran, but they had people that they've been speaking to

since my time in the 1970s after the revolution took place. They've been playing the same cards over and over and over again and supporting the same kinds of organizations like the Mujahidei Nikalk, who are now, of course, esconsed in Albania, supported by the CIA and MI6 and also MSA. It's these people who are so out of touch, but who believe they are, you know, people that

have a handle on the actual opinion and the actual thinking on the part of the people, that sure, if somebody like me who goes and talks to them to find out what's going on in Iran as a former CIA officer, that I would be misled to put it mildly. Wow. Did the FSB, the Russian intel, help to defeat this cabal, CIA, MI6, Mossad on the streets of Tehran and or did the Chinese intel help defeat the cabal? I think it's safe to say that both those countries helped to defeat what was going on in the country. And I believe a lot of it had to do with communications intercepts,

where the Chinese and Russians helping the Iranians with, we've heard a lot about Starlink and other things that were tapped into. So when these people were able to break the communications and get the information to the Iranian government and to the Iranian authorities, that this is what was going on and this is who is talking to whom, that gave the government a significant edge. Wow. So the Iran government has said the death toll was, and this is actually bolstered by human rights entities, close to 5,000 people killed. About half of whom were civilians and police officers.

The other half were thugs animated by, paid by, supported by, directed by MI6 CIA and Mossad. I guess their ability to direct these people was curtailed once the Iranian services took down Starlink. Yeah, I think that's exactly what happened. What surprises me to a certain extent was the extent to which the opposition, meaning, of course, CIA, six Mossad and the respective governments managed to get weapons and that kind of thing into the country. That must have been a pretty good trick. And maybe that was something that one might, if one were on their side, view as a success. But the fact is that, you know, so you wind up there with a bunch of weapons.

And when the local authorities figure out who you are, your life expectancy is of really going to be very limited. So if a car drives across a border into Iran, is it stopped and is the trunk searched? Or can you just drive like you were driving from New Jersey to New York through the Lincoln Tunnel? Well, that could be pretty dangerous. But the fact is that Iran and its neighbors have kind of arranged. in terms of moving from one country to another. When I was in Istanbul back in the 1980s,

the only country that Iran had an open border where you didn't have to get visas and you didn't have to get special permission and stuff like that was with Turkey. So we used to see a lot of Iranians who were somewhat dissidents, showing up in Istanbul and showing up in the embassies of the U.S., Britain, and European countries in particular, and trying to figure out how could I get out.

And that was their view. But they were prime game for intelligence people to say, yeah, you can go back for two years. And if you report on everything going on there, at the end of that time, We'll repatriate you. But, of course, that never happened. Wow. Is the CIA in Greenland now? Well, I don't know it for a fact, but I would have to believe that they're in Greenland.

I mean, there is a, as I'm sure you're aware, a U.S. base of the Space Force in Greenland, which is operational. It's not exactly part of NATO, but it's something like that. And I'm sure there's a CIA base or station, however you want to refer to it, in location in that base. And if there wasn't one six months ago, I'm sure there is one now. Well, is FSB there, the Russian intelligence agency? That gets a little more complicated because they would probably have to have a visa that was issued by Denmark, and I'm not quite sure how that would work. Right, right. What do you think the Kremlin thinks about Greenland? I mean, it's hard to know where this stands today.

Trump claims he has an agreement to agree. Nobody really takes. him seriously, but when he saw what happened to the stock market, he obviously heard from a lot of his rich friends, and he withdrew the threats on the tariffs, the stock market, evened out, and then he came out with this nonsense. We have an agreement, but nobody else is saying there is an agreement. There's clearly no agreement. We have his statement that he's not going to use force and we have a statement that how demeaning to the vice president. Steve Whitkoff and the vice president will negotiate with the foreign minister of Denmark, not Marco Rubio, Steve Whitkoff.

Yeah, that's kind of interesting, isn't it? But anyway, yeah, this is kind of a scam, I would think. They hear Donald Trump, his, his ace card is always threatening violence with whoever he is dealing with. I'm sure the Russians, you know, take him for what he is, which is basically someone who is not very knowledgeable of the realities of international relations. And that's putting it mildly. And a lot of others are just willing to play the game with him to keep. him from going even crazier. I think that the idea now he's saying he's not going to take over by violence, but he's also got this board for peace that he's cranking up, which could be a kind of

way to come in through the back door to get these sort of international changes that he wants. And also there's a, there was a story going out that he's not going to take it over by violence, but he insists on the United States having some footholds in Greenland. In other words, some places where there is an independent, more or less U.S. presence is the way I read it. And this is very strange. And this could be very damaging in terms of any kind of actual agreement ever coming out of this. Here's two statements from the president yesterday in Davos. Chris, if you can play them

play them back to back. The first one, he sounds like a mafia Don, that's cut number one. And in the second one, he says, well, all right, we're not going to use force. Cut number 12. One. So we want a piece of ice for world protection.

And they won't give it. We've never asked for anything else. And we could have kept that piece of land. And we didn't. So they have a choice. You can say yes. and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember. We never ask for anything, and we never got anything.

We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that. Okay? Now everyone's saying, oh, good. that's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force I don't have to use force I don't want to use force

I won't use force all the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland where we already had it as a trustee but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans the Japanese the Italians and others

in World War II we gave it back to them bizarre understanding of history. It's a zero understanding of history. Almost everything he said was wrong. And here you have the same pattern playing out every single time. You threaten, you threaten, you threaten, and then you pretend, well, that's a final option.

And, you know, we don't threaten, we don't do this. Well, what heck were you doing in Venezuela? And this man is, I think I said this in the last time we talked, he's insane. He doesn't understand anything. He makes everything worse. As I say, this peace board he's pulling together. It's going to have Tony Blair. It's going to have, I believe, his son-in-law,

may be on it. And it's going to have, as far as I can make out from what I've read, Benjamin Netanyahu will be right forefront of it and representing Israel or representing the board. Well, you mean Ben-Gavir and Smotrich will allow Netanyahu to go on this board, which presumes some legitimate Palestinian presence in Gaza? except that you have to notice that there is no presence, Palestinian presence on the board. So you'll have Israel with a voice. You'll have the U.S. government, of course, which is, in reality, no friend to the Palestinians, it never has been.

And so you're assuming that that is going to come out with a, quote, peaceful resolution. Well, a peaceful resolution is if you get rid of all the Palestinians, according to the Israeli and a large part of the Trump administration thinking. Here's President Putin yesterday suggesting that Russia might join the board if the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people are accommodated. Chris, number 17. In the Middle East and about the search for possible solutions. Addressing the urgent problems of the Palestinian.

Palestinian people and resolving the most acute humanitarian issues in the Gaza Strip. In this regard, I would like to highlight the main point. The main point is that the entire process should have a positive impact on the long-term settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, and that the necessary, the inalienable needs and wishes of the Palestinians must be taken into account. This concerns the recommendation to reconstruct. the Gaza Strip and its basic social infrastructure, health care systems, water supply, and to establish uninterrupted food provision. Therefore, even now, before we have made a decision regarding participation as part of

and in the work of the Peace Council itself, given Russia's special relationship with the Palestinian people, we could, I think, allocate one billion U.S. dollars from Russian assets that were frozen under the previous U.S. administration to the Peace Council. This is rather extraordinary. What is the special relationship between Russia and the Palestinian people? Well, I don't think it's something that's spelled out in a treaty or anything like that. It's a special relationship is that Russia has recognized the Palestinian right to statehood and has been opposed to the Israeli continuing massacre. of the Palestinian people.

I think that that's basically what he's saying. And it also, of course, has translated into Russian voting in the United Nations, in the Security Council, in particular, where the US has exercised its veto always on behalf of Israel. Russia has voted, of course, for Palestinian statehood, as have most of the other members, of the Security Council.

So this is where he's coming from. Most of the world shares that view. Palestinians have a right to stay to it. They have a right not to be massacred by the Israelis, supported by the United States. Last night, as I was reviewing your most recent column, the presidency from hell, was appalled to see breaking news. story was broken by the Wall Street Journal, that ICE now claims it can break down people's doors

without search warrants signed by judges. This is the most flagrant violation of the Constitution imaginable. Is this one of the reasons you called your column the presidency from hell? Yeah, it's definitely one of the reasons. I mean, here are constitutional rights, are being stripped. And this is not unique to Donald Trump. I mean, Joe Biden did a hell of a job on it, too, in terms of the stuff that was being done in secret, as it were, to support the Israeli genocide and things like that.

Biden was no angel. But Trump is open in his denunciation of a rule of law. And that's something you would never hear out of a politician who is sane. So I think that this is, we've crossed the line where we're adopting the policy that might take, makes right, and that we will always be throwing out there our military power, as Trump just did in that, that picture that you showed. We have the strongest military power. We will do this.

And we would win, of course, you know, this kind of. of nonsense, even if it were true in purely numerical and force reckoning terms, this is not the way governments should behave if they want to get along with the rest of the world. Trump doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about that, except insofar as he can control the process, and the process will not, as he has said many times, will not be a pretty one. This is a liberal Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. I doubt that you and I agree with him on much, but I expect we agree on this.

Chris cut number 18. Congressman, real quick, is Donald Trump's mental health concern for you after some of the things that he's been saying in Europe? Well, he said a lot of crazy shit today at Davos. I mean, I think it's time to take the keys away from grandpa. I mean, he doesn't seem like he's all there. Time to take the keys away from Grandpa. I don't know if this view will spread if it's unique to this congressman.

I suspect it's accepted by many members of Congress, most of whom are afraid to articulate it. Yeah, and it's funny. Larry Johnson had an article and he said the same thing, take away the car keys. Yes. One of the things that terrifies me that is hardly ever discussed. And that is the fact that there's nuclear weapons out there in the hands of Mr. Trump and in the hands of his good friend, Mr. Netanyahu, who if the war that we are all expecting to start against Iran begins in the near future, and if the Iranians actually have the upper hand, there is no question.

but Netanyahu would go nuclear. And Trump is his accomplice in this. I mean, where does this all end? When are we going to make these people behave? Or at least expect them to behave. We're not even doing that. Nicely put, Phil. Phil, thanks very much for your time today,

particularly at this time of day, which is not your usual, but your internet problems are solved. The people watching are happy, we're happy, you're happy. Angela is happy. The dog is happy. You have a great day. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I look forward to it. Sure. Coming up later today, not all of this will make you happy, but we'll inform you about what's going on.

At 1 o'clock, Max Blumenthal, who's been emailing me, and he is just fit to be tied over this latest ice nonsense. at 2 o'clock, Colonel Larry Wilkertson, at 3 o'clock, to tie all of this in a bow, Professor John Mearsheimer, Judge the Politano for Judging Freedom.