Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter : The Return of Cold War Thinking

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Scott Ritter : The Return of Cold War ThinkingSee 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. Fragically, 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 Monday, January 19th, 2006, Scott Ritter will be with us in just a moment on this very intriguing topic. Is it time to consider reestablishing the Cold War? 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. Scott Ritter, welcome, my dear friend. And again, as always, thank you for accommodating my schedule. Before we get to your very intriguing piece about should we be talking, should we be thinking about the Cold War, just one or two questions to follow up on what we discussed on Friday. Did the CIA and MI6 and Mossad bungle the effort to create a 1953-style coup in Iran, or did the Iranian intelligence outsmart them or both?

I think it's a combination of the two. Look, the Iranians know and have known for some time that the hostile intelligence services have been seeking to exploit the fractures. that exist in Iranian society, mainly ethnic fractures. You know, you have Azeris in the north. You have the Kurds. You have Arabs. You have the Baloch. You have also ideological, the M.E.K.

The monarchists. There's significant fractures inside Iran, you know, that the Islamic Revolution has been struggling against and struggling to overcome since. 1979. And the intelligence services are aware of these fractures and they seek to exploit them. Until the most recent events, the most dangerous effort took place in the summer of 2023. I remember talking to President Raezi in September of 2023, where he said that, you know, the struggle that Iran went through was the most dangerous struggle since the revolution, that, you know, the intelligence services, you know, had made deep enroads. and it created an environment where people were questioning the legitimacy of the theocracy. But, you know, the struggle actually allowed the Iranians to unite.

I think the majority of Iranians recognize that Iran is better off with, you know, a government of its own making, however imperfect it is, than they are about having foreign entities impose a government on them. And the Raeisi said that Iran was stronger. The current Iranian president, Puzhzikin, I met September of last year, and he said the similar thing. So the Iranians knew this was here. These intelligence services have been very successful over the years in recruiting people and having them deeply in bed inside Iran.

We saw that with the whole drone operation that took place during the 12-day war, where suddenly secret drone factories emerged out of nowhere, and these cars were driving around launching drones. This happened right under the nose of the Iranian government. Now, the Iranian government was able to roll up this network, but the implication was, and the former Mossad director, Cohen, hinted. He said, we've got more up our sleeve. I think this was it. The international foreign intelligence services orchestrated a monetary crisis, a collapse of confidence in the Iranian crisis that led to legitimate demonstrations in the street. And for two days, the Iranians went to the street peacefully. And the Iranian government let them demonstrate.

And then on the third day, these cells were activated. And this is where the violence began. And the idea was to generate so much violence that they hijacked the regime would be compelled to respond. And then the orchestrators would be able to hijack this. And at the same time, there would be airstrikes that would suppress the government's ability to react. And this would allow a revolution to take place. And they got almost to that point. The problem was the Iranian government nipped it in the bud sooner than they were supposed to because of effective intelligence.

The Mossad and MI6 and the CIA made extensive use of Starlink as a mechanism of communication. Why? Because it's outside of the Iranian internet infrastructure. The Iranians have put in a kill switch and have had a kill switch for some time in their internet where they could shut it down to, you know, fight the ability of these foreign-backed entities to communicate internally. And so to overcome that, and this is something that happened in the summer of 2023 is that the Iranians were very effective in shutting down these cells because they could control the internet connectivity inside Iran. So Starlink was supposed to solve this problem. The trouble was that these same intelligence services have been using Starlink to extensively in Ukraine. Use it to guide drones, use it to communicate, to create communications on the front lines.

when the Ukrainians went into Kursk in August of 2024, the connectivity they had, the real-time connectivity was all powered through Starlink. And the Russians were quick. I remember talking to Abdi Al-Aladinov about this, and the Russians learned that Starlink was a problem. So the Russians developed two unique capabilities. One is to attract Starlink at its source and at its destination, meaning that if you use Starlink, the Russians are able to tell, you know, what the point-to-point connectivity is and where it is geographically. And then the second thing is to shut it down. They have a kill switch.

They can just, because that's how they drop drones, because these drones are using Starlink and the Russians just kill it. They provided this technology to the Iranians, and the Iranians use it to good effect. They were able to monitor real-time the communications being received by these Mossad, MI6 CIA operatives from their controllers overseas. not only were they being aware of, you know, that the orders being given, but who was receiving the orders and where they were located. And then what they did is they went in and they rolled them up and they shut it down.

And now the Mossad and MI6 and the CIA, they can't talk to anybody. This is why you saw this huge thing. Why are the Iranians shutting down? If they say they're not murdering these people, why are they keeping the Internet shut down? They're keeping the Internet shut down because they don't want the CIA, the Mossad. They're able to communicate with what's left. They're taunted left. And very effective.

Last gas desperation, the Israelis sent huge packages of Starlink upgrades to because maybe they thought, oh, maybe there was a glitch. So let's send them new Starlink modules. The Iranians were monitoring that and they rolled it up and they captured it all. And because of this, they shut it down too soon and the airstrikes didn't happen. And so there was a gap. And that's why they ended up not launching the airstrikes because the air strikes were no longer linked to activities on the ground and would be ineffective.

You used an interesting phrase early on in the explanation you just gave us a government of their own making, which is obvious what exists in Iran. Two weeks after he abducted using extraordinary military force to do so, President Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela, President Trump said he wants the Ayatollahs and the theocracy out. By what legal authority or diplomatic precedent or moral value can one head of state demand and facilitate the removal of another head of state when the second state poses no threat whatsoever to the state of the person doing the demanding? Is Trump competent to make these demands? Apparently, according to Donald Trump, because he has moral convictions and he only uses those moral convictions to guide him, that's all what it needs.

But your question is, there's no legal foundation. Again, I mean, you know the Constitution far better than I, but then I'm just a simple Marine. But, you know, the Constitution that we took an oath to uphold and defend allows for when the United States enters a treaty that's been signed by the President ratified by 233. of the United States Senate, that treaty becomes the supreme law of the land. And the United Nation Charter falls within that category. So for all the Americans out there who belittle the charter say it doesn't matter, you're saying the Constitution doesn't matter. You're literally are saying that. And that's what the president has said, that international law doesn't matter. He takes no guidance from international law. And this isn't just the charter. This is the Geneva

Convention's. This is everything that makes civilized society globally civilized. And the president has walked away from that. Look, the Iranians aren't perfect. They'll be the first ones to tell you. I mean, I remember President Pekashkin saying just that. We have problems. He said, but he brought up something interesting. He said in 2023, one of the major issues we had was that the women of Iran were frustrated with the fact that they had to wear the hijab, that they felt so constrained. Today, in Iran, the women don't wear the hijab if they don't want to wear the hijab. If you go to northern Tehran to the shopping center, you'll think that you're in Los Angeles because the hair is undone, undone, mid-drifts are showing. I mean, the idea of an Iranian woman showing her belly

in public was unheard of even a year ago. Today, it's, well, it's not totally common. It's there. You see the, why? Because the Iranian government is a democratically elected government that listens to the will of the people when the will of the people is legally expressed. And the Iranian people said, we don't want your hijab laws. The women who constitute over 51% of the population said, if we want to wear the hijab, we'll wear the hijab. If we don't, you can't make us. And the Iranian government said, we agree with you.

Come on, guys, that is cause and effect democracy in action. So what remains of international law? if Donald J. Trump can say, I want the Ayatollah out just like I wanted Maduro out. Nothing. And we can see this now. We see other nations that previously embraced the rule of law, Russia, in fact, we now have people in Russia of note, not in the government yet, but people who advise the government to close the government, saying it's time for Russia to start playing by the law of the jungle, well because they feel that the United States gains too much advantage going out there and not paying any price. They say maybe it's time for Russia. And if China and Russia decide that international law no longer matters, we are in the jungle. And then it becomes might makes right. And I have to tell Americans again, you know, just keep in mind who the president's been beating

up on lately. Venezuela, Greenland. Who did he back away from? Iran. Why? Because they were going to kick his butt. And he knows it. Russia, he backs away from. The president, we don't have the strength that everybody thinks we have. We have limited strength. And the president right now is very good at bullying people who can't fight back. But if we want to enter the law of the jungle, then Cher Khan, you know, the big tiger. You got to take on ShareCon. And we can't take on ShareCon right now. Here's President Putin speaking remarkably similar to what you just said.

Last Thursday, January 15th, about promises made and promises unkept. Chris, cut number one. 80 years ago, our fathers and grandfathers, great-grandfathers, having won the Second World War, were able to unite, find a balance of interests, and agree on the fundamental rules and principles of international relations, and enshrine them in the UN Charter in all their totality, completeness, and interconnection. The imperatives of this foundational document, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, non-interference and internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes through dialogue,

are now in demand more than ever. This principle is enshrined in fundamental international legal documents. Disregard for this basic, vital principle has never led and will never lead to anything good. This was clearly demonstrated by the crisis around Ukraine, which became a direct consequence of many years of ignoring Russia's legitimate interests and a deliberate course toward creating threats to our security, toward the advance of the NATO bloc to Russia's borders, contrary to the public promises given to us. I want to emphasize this, contrary to the public promises given to us.

I recall that Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives to build a new, reliable and fair architecture. of European and global security. I want to reemphasize this, contrary to the public promises given to us. We all know exactly what he's talking about. Is it time to reconsider the Cold War? Or the Cold War mentality. Let me refine the question.

Well, the Cold War mentality. First of all, the Cold War was created on absolute misunderstanding. I mean, you know, the United States and the Soviet Union were allies at the end of the Second World War. There was some frustration at Potsdam about, you know, what Russia was doing in Poland. But the reality is Russia was only doing that which was agreed to in Poland. And it was just the fact that he outgamed Winston Churchill that created this issue. You know, the United States at the end of the Second World War were seeking to impose American economic kajemnity on the world. The Marshall Plan, we had created the world.

World Bank. We had the International Monetary Fund. And we were trying to strongarm Joseph Stalin in Russia into joining these so that the Soviet reconstruction, which was extensive, would fall under the umbrella of the Marshall Plan and Marshall Plan-like things. And that would give the United States ability to control indirectly the Soviet Union, because we would control indirectly their economy. And Stalin said no. And so the Department of Treasury had sent an inquiry to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in January of 1946. And in February, George Kennan responded with this famous 8,000-word long telegram. And his response went beyond simply asking the question,

why didn't the Soviets want to join the World Bank of the International Monetary Fund? And instead, he went into an expose on the incompatibility of the Soviet Union and its way of thinking and its approach to the West. This was used by the Truman administration to create the Truman Doctrine, which was, if the Soviets don't want to play on our team, then we need to contain them. We need to isolate them. We need to stop their expansion, even though there was no expansion taking place. And then this got weaponized into what was known as NSC-68 in 1950, which created the concept of the Cold War that we would now use military force to contain the Soviet Union. And then we had the Cold War from 1950 until 1991, the Cold War. And yes, it was a dangerous time. We had arms races. We had threats of nuclear war.

But we never had a hot war. We avoided a hot war. And the other interesting thing about the Cold War is the entire time we had sound diplomatic relations. I just want to point out that during the time of Joe Biden, we weren't even talking to the Russians. We had diplomatic relations. I knew the Russian ambassador, Anatoly Anzano, very well in his frustration about not having interaction with the U.S. government, with the State Department, which is basically sitting in Washington, D.C., it was palpable. During the Cold War, we always had diplomatic relations with the Soviets. We had economic relations with the Soviets.

We had terrorism. The Keita Khrushchev visited the United States. Richard Nixon visited the Soviet Union. We had summits where we talked with one another. We came into agreements. And because we respected each other, respected each other, we entered into binding international agreements regarding arms control. First, to limit arms control, the strategic arms limitations, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, but then eventually to eliminate the weapons themselves to, you know, the INF treaty that I played a role in, to start treaty. I played a role in the beginning.

These were treaties that were premised on mutual respect. we had foreign area officers in the military and foreign service officers in the State Department who were genuine experts on the Soviet Union, on Russia, not because we loved them. Heck, we were at a Cold War, but because we needed to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth about these people that we were ideologically up against. And so the officers that I dealt with, the colonels, lieutenant colonels, that I dealt with on our side when we were doing the arms control treaty, these were genuine experts. They knew Russia.

They could speak to Russian language and new Russian history. They knew Russian culture. They were able to go to Russia and integrate effectively. They could hear the Russians bring back that message, articulated effectively so that we had sound policy. That was the Cold War. You compare and contrast that with what we have today. Russophobia running rampant.

We can't even study. My daughter went to Georgetown University. Okay. She studied in the elite foreign service. She was specializing in the Caucasus region, you know, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Chechnya, Dagestan. And I took her to Russia. And I took her to Chechnya. And she met Ramzan Khadirov.

She met the senior leadership of the Chechen Republic. She had informed discussions with these people. She learned so much. She toured museums. She talked to senior imam, senior historians. When she came back to Georgetown, this girl who, was getting her master's degree in Caucasian studies was mocked. Her fellow students, many of them were, you know, taking programs related to how to overthrow the government

in Georgia and all that. Some of them posted she should commit suicide for me. They demanded she be kicked out of the program and the school chastised her. Okay, that's the state of American academia today. There's no desire to have genuine knowledge. about Russia, about anything about Russia. They promote anti-Putin ideology. It's Russophobia all over the getting. We were healthier academically during the Cold War than we are today. And the other problem now, too, is where are we going?

During the Cold War, it was about learning to peacefully coexist with the Soviet Union. That's what it was all about. Even Ronald Reagan, the Great Cold Warrior, when he started his presidency, it was the evil empire. But by the time he finished when he was at University of Moscow, and a student said, are we still the evil empire? He said, no, times have changed. I view you as friends. I view you as friends, and he meant it.

But we didn't follow through. Why? Because the Cold War ended. And it ended in a way that allowed us to say, we won, you lost. That's really not true. You know, the mythology of we went into an arms race and we bankrupted the Soviet Union. The people that embrace that know nothing about how the Soviet economy worked, how Soviet defense industry worked. The Soviet Union failed because Mikhail Gorbachev mismanaged his perestroika revolution.

And he basically broke the system and had nothing to replace it and it collapsed. But we didn't reach out a helping hand to say, hey, let me help you up, friend. We put our foot on their neck and we said, you're staying down. And the decade of the 90s was all about the United States, keeping Russia down, keeping Russia weak, trying to break Russia up to end Russia's abilities to rise up and challenge us again like they did during the Soviet Union. That's the truth. That's the legacy of the Cold War. A failed relationship. Vladimir Putin came out in 2000 and said, nah, we're standing up, we're dusting ourselves off, and we're going to be the equals. He taught Russians to fall in love with Russia again, to be proud of Russia.

And he said, we will not be kneeling before anybody. We're not trying to be above you, but we're certainly not going to kneel. All of the Cold Warriors who won the Cold War for the United States resented that. They've resented Vladimir Putin, and they've been seeking. to remove him from power ever since. And the hatred for Vladimir Putin because Vladimir Putin refuses to yield has led to the situation we are today. We have a situation where the President of the United States tried to kill Vladimir Putin on December 29th. We need to go back to the Cold War. Why? Because first of all, we have to learn to respect Russia again. Second of all, by having an adversarial relationship with Russia, we will be compelled to learn the reality of Russia, just like we did in the past,

to re-educate ourselves about the truth about Russia. And then once we learn to respect Russia, let's end the Cold War the right way with two equal powers, shaking hands, mutual respect, trustworthiness. The United States can't be trusted at all. If we can reset, if we can, we'd have to go back in time, like back to the future. But if we can get up to the point where we can reset so that when the Cold War 2.0 ends, and it's not with one side winning, the other side losing. It's with both sides saying, no more Cold War, let's be friends.

Let's truly be friends and move forward together. That's why I propose a new Cold War because what's happening right now, we're broke. How can we be trusted? Our president was in a conversation with the Russian president that was designed to hold him in place while the Ukrainians at 91 drones to kill him. That's just not the way nation states work. We are not serious about peace with Russia. We have a CIA director that is fully engaged in a covert war to bring down the Soviet, bring down Russia. We have a secretary of treasurer whose number one purpose is to impose sanctions that break the Russian economy.

This is not language of peace, love, and happiness. The spirit of Alaska turns out to have been a fraud. And so rather than play these dangerous games, because as Vladimir Putin said in his speech, promises were made and promises were not kept. A lot of promises are being made today, and they're not going to be kept because the United States is not a trustworthy partner. We need a new Cold War so that we can relearn what it means to treat the Russians with respect. And then, and only then, can we possibly be the trustworthy partner Russia needs to live in peace? Segwaying to that massive landmass that exists between Russia and the United States, Will the Kremlin encourage the Greenland talk in order to watch the slow disintegration of NATO?

Well, it's curious. Pescroft came out and said, one way or another, Trump's going down in history. It's a curious statement. He said, this doesn't mean good or bad. It just means if Trump takes Greenland, he will go down in history. And the implication is that Trump is going to break everything that existed previously in terms of U.S.-European relations. The Russians have never been for that. You heard Vladimir Putin say, we have tried over and over again to create a framework, a security framework between Europe and Russia, the United States, and Russia. A security framework is one that's premised on the notion that both sides have, legitimate interests that must be respected. The Russians live next door to Europe. They don't want

to destabilize Europe. They would like a Europe that has its act together. They would like a Europe that is thriving because a thriving Europe therefore can be more easily linked to a thriving Russia. And yet, on the other hand, you're looking at the United States that is using NATO as an extension of American foreign policy, and the American foreign policy is singularly geared towards the strategic defeat of Russia. And so sometimes they say the best course of that, if the enemy is doing what you want them to do, don't get in their way. And right now, you know, the Russians view NATO as an existential threat and what Donald Trump is doing could lead to the dissolution of NATO and the elimination of this existential threat without Russia having to

lift the finger. So I think the Russians will continue to articulate in favor of international law, because, as Vladimir Putin said, that's what makes civilized society civilized. But if the relationship between the United States and Europe is so poisoned that Greenland is even possible, it's not Russia's job to fix that relationship. It's Russia's job to be ready to step in when that relationship collapses and do what's necessary to secure the interests of Russia. And what I think you'll see is that there will be a race between the United States and Russia to carry the favor of individual European nations as the European Union collapses and as NATO disintegrates.

Here's the comment. Actually, earlier today, this morning, Moscow time from Peskov. Chris, cut number nine. However, their international experts. who believe that if Trump resolves the issue of Greenland's annexation, he will undoubtedly go down in history, and not only in the history of the United States, but in world history as well. And I repeat once again, without discussing whether this is good or bad, it's hard to disagree with these experts. That's probably all that can be said on this topic.

That's like saying if Adolf Hitler invades Poland, he's going to go down in history, one way or the other. Right. It's neither positive nor negative at this point. apparently the president just had, while you and I have been on air, a telephone interview with NBC News, which he says he will, quote, 100 percent hit European nations with fresh tariffs if a Greenland deal is not reached. When asked by NBC if he would take Greenland by force, he answered, no comment. Yeah, no, this is a done deal. It's going to happen. And the ramifications of it, I mean, you know, on social media, there's a wide range of people on social media. There's so many people out there who consider themselves to be chest-thumping patriots. And they're all jumping up and down about Greenland. And I have to tell you, honestly, if you're an American citizen and you're happy about the president taking, Greenland, you're not a very good American citizen. You're not very patriotic because this isn't about patriotism.

You know, I've often been criticized. They're critical of the Germans of the 1930s. I feel that they stood aside and did nothing as Adolf Hitler rose to power. And Adolf Hitler, you know, it was a gradual rise to power as he gradually assumed powers. We have a president today that feels that he can occupy American cities, that his ice warriors, his ice army operates above all. all other law and jackputed thugs can you know commit crimes and not be held to account. We have a militarized police force that is, you know, again, they view when they go out on patrol every morning, is that they view that they're patrolling enemy territory.

How can the United States of America be enemy territory to an American police officer? And yet this is the mindset we have. We have a president who says international law doesn't matter. He has invaded a country. He has kidnapped a leader. He has waged the illegal war of aggression against other nations. He tried to assassinate the leader of a nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world. We are a nation that has completely lost track of who we are and what we are.

You know, we live in a different world that are founding fathers. And I know there was cautioning about do not go out in search of enemies and all that, but George Washington and company didn't have to fight World War II. We did. and we helped defeat Imperial Japan and fascist Germany. You know, the Soviet Union, of course, played a huge role in both of those. So did our other allies. But we were leaders in a coalition that defeated these two forces.

The United States today is more closely aligned with the actions and ideology of the fascist entities that we defeated than the nation that defeated them. And this should send a shockwave up Americans. We are becoming the good Germans who stood by and did nothing as their country transitioned into the most horrible country in the history of the world. So when Dmitri Peskov says that Donald Trump is going to make history, trust me, it's not that kind of history that you want to be aligned with. Agreeing essentially with what you said, but in his own inimitable comedic way, just to end the end, this very serious session on a light note, our mutual friend George Galloway, Chris cut number 12. It is unable to join the more gung-ho members of NATO. That's relative, of course. The French sent 15 soldiers. The Germans sent 15 soldiers and then quickly withdrew them. The British have sent

one soldier. That's right, one soldier. They can't join the most. gang-ho Europeans because Britain is an American-occupied country and we are occupied by American military bases. They're called Royal Air Force bases, but you won't find the king saluted in them. All of my lifetime, we've been told the Russians were coming. The Russians were about to invade Europe. And we had to spend, like Billio on military hardware. We had to possess nuclear weapons because the Russians were coming.

And as it turns out, it's the Americans that are coming. And the Russians have no interest in the matter whatsoever. It's enough to make a horse laugh. It certainly got me laughing. No, I love George Galloway. He has a sense of humor that is second to none. And he's as articulated as the day is long. I'm often intimidated when I have conversations with him,

because I find myself when he finishes speaking and expect me to say something saying, dude, I can't touch that. I can't touch what you just said. It's brilliant. But he's right. I mean, we're in an Alice in Wonderland type situation right now where we're literally chasing, you know, the rabbit down the rabbit hole and entering a fantasy world of, you know, horror and, you know, where the laws of nature no longer apply.

And, you know, maybe it's just because I'm a boomer. I often get criticized. You know, you're a boomer. Oh, hell yeah, I am. I mean, I'm proud of it. You know, 64 years on this earth, and I wouldn't trade any of those years in for anything because of the experience gained from each one of them. But, you know, that means that I go back a long way.

And the America that I knew as a child and I knew growing up and that I knew as a young adult that America no longer exists and that's not a good thing. Scott Ritter, thank you very much, my dear friend. Thanks for your intellectual honesty, your personal courage and your passion. And I too can be intimidated by George because he's so funny and so articulate and so fearless all at the same time. My wife told me on the passion front, she said, you know, especially after this most recent debanking, she said, try not to be so.

passionate. Scotty, I'm not going there about passion between you and your beautiful wife. All the guests to you, my friend. We'll see you again next week. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Coming up tomorrow Tuesday at 8 in the morning, Ambassador Chas Freeman, I have a full day for you. At 10 in the morning, Colonel William Astori, at 11 in the morning, Colonel Douglas

McGregor, at 1 in the afternoon. I don't know where he is, but we found him. Pepe Escobar, two in the afternoon, Matt Ho, at three in the afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwekowski. Looking forward to it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.