Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern : Trump Keeps Killing

Episode Date: November 17, 2025

Ray McGovern : Trump Keeps KillingSee 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 Monday, September 17, 2025. Ray McGovern will be with us in just a moment. Will the United States abide by the New Start Treaty after it expires? And why is Trump still killing non-combatants on speedboats? But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls. Currencies collapse.

And look at where we are now. $38 trillion in national debt. Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up. And this dollar, it buys less every day. When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either. But one thing will.

Gold. I've set it on my show for years. Gold survives collapse. Central bankers know this and billionaires know it. That's why they're buying more. Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time? Call my friends at Lear Capital to find out. Ask questions. Get the free information. There's no pressure and that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear. And right now you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620, or go to Learjudgeonap.com today. Ray, welcome here, my dear friend. Before we get to the Trump-Heg-Seth continued,

I'll call them what they are, murders of non-combatants and speedboats off the coast of Mexico and Venezuela, I do want to ask you, because he just made some comments that you very adroitly analyzed, that is, Foreign Minister Lavrov, I do want to ask you about the Russians and the Americans and the New START Treaty, which, of course, ends by its own terms in just a couple of months. So first, have the Russians expressed a willingness to extend the terms beyond February? and second, if they have, has the United States responded? The answer to the first one is yes. The U.S. has not responded.

It was September 22nd when Putin himself made this overture. And all he said was, look, it's too late to renew the New START Treaty. It expires on February 5. We are willing to abide by the limits, the quantitative limits on warheads. deployed if you are for a whole year. So that would give us a chance to kind of develop a new treaty or whatever. So all we need is an answer from you. Simple, yes or no, please let us know if you're willing to match us and refer.

Because if you're not, then we'll just go ahead. And lately, the Russians have been complaining overtly that, you know, we still don't have an answer from Washington, Lavrov, most recently. So we keep on waiting for it. It's a simple question. There's a glimmer of hope in what one Russian official said last week, and that is, hey, look, we'd accept an oral promise on that. Whoa, now, I don't know. I'd have to see confirmation of that.

But the Russians don't want to have a nuclear arms race of the kind that I experienced in the 60s and 70s. It was put a lid on by the ABM treaty, Bush cut out of that. Then there was the convention. was the INF Treaty, intermediate nuclear forces, Scott Redder was one of the monitors for in 1987, Trump got out of that one. So if this one goes, if New START goes, then there's no break on development of nuclear weaponry, and it suits everyone, it seems to me, to put a cap on it at least for one more year. So this is referred to as the New START Treaty, because there was an original one just called Start.

Correct my memory. I think it goes back to Reagan and Gorbachev, does it not? Well, yeah, go back to Bush, and it goes back away. Let's see about, you know, it would be back that far. It's been renewed twice, so we have to do the math. But it was the thing that gave us new hope. And indeed, those limits have been observed. It's 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads limitation on both sides.

That covers ICBMs, SLEEN launched ballistic missiles, and bombers that were deployed. It's been the cornerstone for the last couple of decades, just like the ABM treaty was before Junior Bush decided to get out of it. So this is a biggie. And in my view, it's the litmus test. Here are the Russians looking at Trump's freedom of maneuver. Now, they've been making side effects about, well, he may not be his old man. What's the best proof of that? I'd go back to Alaska, the summit.

At the very end, they seem to be very cordial, okay? And at the end, Putin says, now they were talking about the summit, and Putin says in English next time in Moscow. And what does Trump say? Oh, my, that would be difficult. What exactly is what? It was not an immediate, yes, let's put it that way. I'd have to check.

Anything by people is what he said. Right, right, right, right. Exactly. Exactly. You know, it's a head scratcher, Ray, and we're not the only one scratching our heads. Here is, you were just talking about. That's the comment by Foreign Minister Lavrov on this. Chris, cut number six.

The constructive initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin in the post-new start context speaks for itself. It contains no hidden agenda and is perfectly clear for understanding. Its practical implementation would not require any special additional efforts. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to hold in-depth discussions on this proposal. The only thing required is reciprocity from the United States. We will voluntarily adhere to the restrictions only if, and precisely for as long as, the other side does the same. Naturally, should the Americans have any questions, they are free to raise them with us.

So far, there has been no substantive response from Washington. We have been informed through diplomatic channels that the issue is under consideration. We have no intention of keeping persuading anyone. We believe that our steps serves the interests of both parties and the entire international community. We are ready for any development of events while hoping for a positive outcome. If President Trump, through Secretary Rubio, says nothing or says no, I hope that neither of those is the case, but who knows? He could change his mind and a heartbeat.

What will happen? Another arms race, like we had two generations ago? ago? Well, there will be people clapping their hands and joy. And those people are the members of the military, industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academia, think tank complex. Mickey Matt. Just before you go further, Jeff Sachs suggests one more word, because you've got to get Silicon Valley in there, digital. Well, yeah, digital too.

But in any case, these people will be making tons of money, and the gap between rich and poor will grow even greater. So, yeah, it will serve only the arms merchants and those that have stock in Raytheon, Lockheed, and the other places. So it's a really sorrowful turn of events. The idiocy of it is that the Russians have shown that they can go around or under or over any conceivable umbrella, defense system that the U.S. could build, whatever it is. And this goes back to Reagan. We told Reagan, look, don't be deceived. This Star Wars thing cannot be inviolate.

It can always be gotten around. You can always put a bunch of decoys in there. It's forgot about Star Wars, though. He never could, of course. But the reason he never could was that the military industrial complex, some of them working at the National Security Council, who they are. We're telling him, no, no, no, your Star Wars is going to great. So when Gadabashov tells you, let's get rid of all nuclear arms, what happens to the Star Wars?

Historic example in Reykjavik, I think was 1987 or so. And Reagan went back and said, no, I, you know, I can't do that. My advisors say I can't do that. So these opportunities are lost. And, And, you know, in terms of urgency, Foreign Secretary, Foreign Minister Lavrov is making a speech or giving an interview every day, I mean? And, you know, they're sort of projecting a relaxed atmosphere. Look, take it or leave it. You know, we're not trying to press you, but we're trying to press you. And we only have until February 5th. Now, they have made it clear that you can answer it any time before February. We're fifth, automatic, no problem. Don't have to do anything, okay? And as I say, there was some indication that they would take an oral promise from the president.

I don't know about that, but that shows the lengths to which they will go. Why? Because the primary purpose of Putin and the rest of them is to prevent a mercurial president from starting a nuclear war. Got it. Here's a little footnote, Judge. Mercurial comes from the Roman god Mercury. What was he the patron of? He was the patron of more.

And, well, he was the patient of shysters, of merchants, of what else? It was the patron of merchants, travelers, thieves, and tricksters, sort of some of the real estate guys from those days. And he was commonly identified with one of those fast guys, Hermes, okay? Now, what does mercurial mean? It means a person who is unpredictable, subject to changes of mood of mind, a mercurial temperament. One last thing. Now, for the younger set, you'll have to kind of believe me on this, but we used to have thermometers to measure our temperatures, okay?

And I broke one one time. What was inside there? Mercury. Was it poison? Yes. Was I supposed to touch it? No, for God I'd say, I couldn't scoop it.

I couldn't scoop it up. It could give me a little beads. It was completely, you couldn't tell where it would go. Mercury is mercurial. And that's the overriding concept of the Russian leaders. And I think I see them saying to themselves, well, we'll do the best we can to avoid nuclear war. And if we have to wait three years, all right.

That's the fates, but meanwhile, when did this happen to you? You were a child? Oh, yeah. Well, no, actually, I'm pretty clumsy. I dropped this about 10 years ago. Well, you obviously survived. It didn't kill you. God bless you.

But today is, if you do touch it, and that's why the Russians are really, you're cherry of more close to Trump. I get it. I get it. When you get infected. How is it that correct? in Ukraine, of which we have all known for many years, is now finally on the front pages. Good question. One cannot say I'm shocked. Right. But what is shocking is that this unit that the

United States set up, okay, and that Zelensky tried to kill just a few months ago is doing its job. Now, who gives up encouragement to do its job? I think that. the leftover agents that we hope to create this thing are still around, or at least they have great influence. So the way I had diagnosis, this is very, very serious, okay? This is a challenge to Zelensky, and I think the West is, maybe the UK, they'll probably stay forever, but I think the U.S. is quite behind it. And I see that the Ukrainian press for God says having a field day with it. The Ukrainian press, right? Ukrainskaya pravda. And even some of the coalition of the willing leaders, like Kullis saying, oh my, well, I hope you fix this thing. And so how are

the European leaders going to justify to their own people giving billions to this guy who's skimming a hundred million? That's nothing. They're giving billions off the top. And it's his best buddy who was with him in the theatrical world that is getting most of it, he conveniently got an advanced word and left town. So I think this is a preparation for the West to get rid of Zelensky. And I think Zelensky, I would predict maybe he might not last even the rest of the year, given the fact that he's responsible. And Sierski, the commander-in-chief of the Army responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands, Ukrainian youth, even when they're encircled, even when they're pleading, pleading. Is it okay if we surrender? That's going to come

in the next couple of weeks. So in the public's mind, a public that is being run by a government that they didn't elect because his term expired, but he's overstayed his time. They are finally recognizing the thievery, and they recognize Zelensky as the crook in chief. Yeah, the thievery especially. And then, of course, each one of these families has somebody who, if he hasn't escaped to Germany or to Belgium, has been killed or has been subjected to what the Ukrainian forces have been subjected to. So the word gets around. The only danger here, not the only danger, but the big one, is that no one knows who would replace Zelensky.

Could it be somebody worse? Yes, it could be somebody worse. Are the neo-Nazis that powerful? Yes, they are. They have to be done very adroitly. They have to maybe, Zolucci, the guy who's in London now as an ambassador, maybe he could do it. But even he has close ties to the Nazis. So it's a tough thing to work out.

But I think the preliminary signs are that they're trying to do in Zelensky and what better way than to show he's a crook and that his friends are such crooks that they had to leave town as inspectors came. You just mentioned Kayakalas. She is the head of foreign relations for the EU. By the way, a friend of mine, I've been mean to say this for so long, was a fellow student of hers in grad school.

He says she was a dope then and she's a dope now. He has to agree with us on what the Europeans should be doing. That's just his opinion. Nevertheless, when you mentioned her, it reminded me, is there opposition growing to the theft, theft of Russian government bank deposits in EU banks? because she and her boss, Ursula Vandaline, are in favor of that. Yeah.

With all due respect to these two ladies, it's a hairbrain scheme. It was from the beginning. It is now, and it ever shall be, okay? The head of Belgium got up, and in a very adroit speech two weeks ago, said, look, look, what do I accept a liability for fooling around with Russian funds? I got about it. And then just yesterday, one of the deciders on these things, on this clearinghouse or whatever you call it, has said, look, this is not going to happen. We're not going to allow it. So I think von der Leyen and Callas and the others that thought this was a piece of cake, we could just pick this Russian. It's not going to happen. Now, that's important, Judge, because lots of people have been saying, well, we could keep this Ukrainian war.

and for maybe two, maybe three years, if we get that, it goes Russian 200 billion or whatever it is. Well, that's not true. It couldn't, but even if it were true, then I could get it. So where's the funding? There's no funding. The U.S. Vice President Vance has said, we're out of there. Ukraine is over. That's all his words.

Ukraine is over. So where are the Europeans going to get the money, where they're going to? depriving their people already of necessary social benefits to help Ukraine keep this thing going. So again, if I'm pooching, I'm sitting back and say, oh, good. The Belgians have spoken up. It would be economic suicide, financial suicide, for not only the Belgians, but for the rest of the Western trading world. That's not going to happen. They're not going to have any money.

The U.S. doesn't have any weapons to give them. right now in a couple of years they might not have money to buy the weapons to give to the ukraine's and the ukrainian army has been defeated and there's very precious ladle left in terms of ukrainian troops so you can see where if i'm puttin i'm saying all right well we'll play along here we're not going to stir up the hornet's nest there by making this mercurial guy react in a way that's completely unpredictable well we'll win the war in ukraine we'll go as far as we have to We'll stop, and they'll say, now are you really into it? And if they say, no, we'll have to deal with that in due course.

But they're in no rush. This big thing about renewing new start or renewing the provisions, the quantitative limits on offensive deployed missiles and bombs, that's big. So if they looked at Trump and they say, well, not only was he unable to agree to a new summit in Moscow or anywhere, even though they took them back from saying Budapest would meet there, but we'll keep trying to do that, and they still are trying to do that publicly. But meanwhile, we'll have to say, well, you know, we're out of control of political events in the U.S. So we just have to wait this guy out.

Maybe it's always possible somebody better will come in in three years when they have a better appreciation for what we Russians used to call the world currently. of forces, balance of power 101. Last subject matter, the same office, I don't know if it's the same human beings, I doubt it because it was a generation ago, but the same office in the Department of Justice that told Cheney and Bush they could torture people, as long as they called it enhanced interrogation has told Trump and Hegseth they can murder people on the high seas or admitted non-combatants, as long as they call them narco-terrorists, a phrase unknown in American law. How much longer is this going to go on? Trump has killed now over 75 people,

and it's more than 10 boats blown out of the water. Ironically, Judge, that office, I think, is called the Office of Legal Counsel. Yeah, or Office of Professional Responsibility, part of the Legal Counsel. Yeah. You know, that office was once headed by William Rehnquist, who became the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It was once held by my dear late friend Antonin Scalia, who became a prominent member of the Supreme Court. It's now held by Thugs. He'll do whatever the President wants them to do.

Well, that's just it. And, you know, for all the conciliatory rhetoric coming out of Lavrov and others, it's not a mistake or a coincidence that yesterday, out of nowhere, came another interview from Lavrov about Nuremberg. Now, Lavrov is participating in some sort of film on Nuremberg, but he did this interview yesterday, you know, and he said, you know, we, Soviets at the time, were really behind the Nuremberg trials, you know, the tribunal. We pushed really hard.

The West wasn't so much in favor of it. Now, if memory serves, that's correct. I haven't checked the history book yet. But the big point we said, look, that took the law of the jungle off the charts, okay? That made people responsible for war crimes. And these things are happening even today. and Lavrov is not so much referring to genocide, who to which he should refer, he's referring to what's happening offshore Venezuela.

Venezuela is a much tougher nut to crack. If Trump goes into Venezuela, he's crazy because that will be his Vietnam. He'll not be able to do anything else for the rest of his term. Wow. He did, of course, late last night, change his mind. him using ear quotes on whether the Epstein files should be released, because I think he saw a support for his version of this hemorrhaging as a tidal wave of Republicans in the House came out in favor of this resolution offered by Congressman Thomas Massey and Congressman

Roe Kahana. Chris, can you put that up again, please, and I'll read it aloud. This is from the President late Sunday night. House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files because we had nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat hoax perpetrated by radical left lunatics in order to deflect from the great success of the Republican Party. Let's start talking about the Republican Party's record-setting achievements and not fall into the Epstein trap. The word trap is in caps and quotes, which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. This is ridiculous. tell the Justice Department to release it.

He doesn't need a vote from the Congress. The Justice Department works for him. He's been vigorously resisting this. They tormented Marjorie Taylor Green in the Situation Room in the White House last week, and she basically told him not Marjorie Taylor Green, the one from Colorado, her friend whose name is now escaping me, Lauren Bobert. She basically told them to go take a hike.

They weren't changing her mind. Yeah, did I mention Mercurio? Yes, you're talking. Yes, you did. You did. You can't depend on a guy like this. I mean, the other thing, Judge, is a moral thing. You know, if you can't trust people on relatively minor things, although it's hard to argue that violating underage girls is minor, okay? If you can't trust people on these kinds of things, how can you trust them on matters of state? It's just an incredible embarrassment that, that these leaders, so to speak, who hog the airwaves and the TV, that they are the ones that are morally corrupt in small or relatively, might relatively unacknowledged ways as they are with these young girls, violating them.

What was that one email? Oh, yeah, yeah, Trump knows all about them. the girl. So what does that mean? Okay. So these people are in charge. If we're a democracy, we're going to get rid of the whole crowd. We're going to put them, put them aside. We'll have a chance to do that next year. I just hope it's not too late. Right. Thank you, Ray. A great conversation, my dear friend. Thanks for allowing us to go all across the board. We didn't touch Gaza. We'll touch that when we speak next. Larry should be home from Russia by the end of the week. be back together on the Intelligence Community Roundtable on Friday. We'll see you there again.

Thank you. Ray, all the best. You're most welcome. Sure. Now, because Larry is traveling in Russia, I am not sure when he's going to be on with us today, but he will be on with us today, not at 1130 Eastern, I believe at 2 this afternoon or at 3 this afternoon. Keep an eye on the website, and we will let you know. For sure, cleanup hitter at 4 this afternoon, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.