Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Surprising Development in Abrego Garcia Case
by Glenn Kirschner
Jul 1, 2025

If there is one universal truth in the criminal justice system it is that people would rather be out of prison than in prison. Defendants generally ask judges to release them, not detain them.

However, given the abuse and untrustworthiness of Trump's Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, Abrego Garcia and his lawyers just asked a federal judge to continue to detain rather than release Abrego Garcia in his criminal case in Tennessee.

This video discusses why he made and the judge ordered this unusual request.

If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner



Transcript

So friends, there's a new legal
development in the Abrego Garcia case. I
would go so far as to call it a twist.
And it's a legal development that
highlights just how out of control,
untrustworthy,
and lawless
some of Donald Trump's executive branch
agencies are.
Let's talk about that because justice
matters.
[Music]
Hey all, Glen Kersner here. So friends,
in my 30 years as a federal prosecutor,
I think I can fairly and accurately say
that there is one universal truth.
People would rather be out of prison
than in prison. Defendants don't often
ask judges to keep them in detention
rather than releasing them from
detention. But because Donald Trump's
executive branch agencies, the
Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, can't be trusted,
Abrego Garcia and his lawyers just asked
a federal judge to keep him detained in
his criminal case in Tennessee.
Let's start with the new reporting. This
from CBS News. Headline. Kilmar Abrego
Garcia's released from federal custody
delayed after lawyers warn of possible
deportation.
And that article begins, "A federal
magistrate judge said Monday that Kilmar
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was
mistakenly deported to El Salvador and
then was returned to the United States
to face criminal charges of human
smuggling will remain in federal custody
at least until mid July." Abrego
Garcia's lawyers had asked the judge
Friday to delay his release. Let me say
that again. The defendant's lawyers,
Abrego Garcia's lawyers, asked the judge
to keep him detained, delay his release,
warning that the Trump administration
had made conflicting statements about
whether he will be deported after he is
released ahead of trial, meaning ahead
of his criminal trial in Tennessee.
The brief order from US Magistrate Judge
Barbara Holmes is the latest development
in the case involving Abrego Garcia,
whose removal deportation to El Salvador
in March, emerged as a flash point in
Trump's immigration agenda and promise
of mass deportations of immigrants in
the US unlawfully. Abrego Garcia was
indicted by a federal grand jury on two
charges of human smuggling in late May
after which the government returned him
to the US to face federal prosecution.
He has pleaded not guilty. His Abrego
Garcia's return came weeks after a
federal judge in Maryland ordered the
Trump administration to facilitate
Abrego Garcia's release from Salvador in
custody, which was affirmed by the
Supreme Court. A US immigration official
had acknowledged Abrego Garcia's
deportation to El Salvador was an
administrative error as he had been
granted a legal status in 2019 that
prevented the Department of Homeland
Security from removing Abrego Garcia to
his home country because of likely
persecution by local gangs.
After Albrego Garcia was brought back to
the US to face the human smuggling
offenses, the Justice Department
requested he remain detained while
awaiting trial, but the magistrate judge
Holmes earlier this month rejected that
request and said he should be granted
pre-trial release. But during a hearing
last week to review the conditions of
Abrego Garcia's release, lawyers for the
Salvadoran man and the Justice
Department acknowledged that he would
likely be detained by the Department of
Homeland Security and deported swiftly
after being released from Justice
Department custody, which would
interfere with his criminal proceedings.
Holmes put off issuing her order of
release and Debgo Garcia's lawyers asked
her to delay it further because of what
they said are conflicting statements
about whether he would be removed
deported to a third country one other
than El Salvador if detained by
immigration authorities while awaiting
trial. this quote from Abrego Garcia's
lawyers. Quote, "A short delay will
prevent the government, the Trump
administration, from removing Mr. Abrego
and allow time for the government to
provide reliable information concerning
its intentions." Abrego Garcia's lawyers
wrote in a filing to Holmes. The
magistrate judge agreed to the request
and said Abrego Garcia will remain in
the custody of the US Marshalss until
the next hearing on July 16th.
And friends, here's just a little bit of
the judge's new ruling and order.
In the case of United States versus
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia order
pending before the court is the
defendant Kilmar Abrego Garcia's
emergency motion to delay issuance of
order of release due to the government's
contradictory statements which for the
reasons detailed below is granted as
noted by the district judge in his June
25th 2025 memorandum opin opinion the
question of whether the government, the
Trump administration has made the proper
showing to trigger the statutory
authority to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia
pending trial is important as it is
axiomatic that an individual has a
strong interest in liberty. Against that
backdrop, the court considers Abrego's
request to briefly remain in US Marshall
custody pending further proceedings
before the district court. And then
friends, we're going to jump right to
the end where the judge says Abrego
shall remain in the custody of the
United States Marshalss pending further
order.
Okay, friends, all of that leads to the
following question. What the hell is
going on here? A defendant, Abrego
Garcia, asking to be detained rather
than released. Okay, let's follow the
bouncing ball of injustice.
Injustice that's being perpetrated by
the Trump administration, by DOJ, by
DHS.
First, the Trump administration
unlawfully and unconstitutionally
grabbed up Abrego Garcia, stuffed him on
a plane, and sent him to a prison in El
Salvador. Why was it unlawful? Well, an
immigration judge had previously ordered
that the Trump administration cannot
deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador
because he was at risk of torture,
persecution, or worse, so they did it
unlawfully, unconstitutionally, because
they deprived him of his due process
rights of notice and opportunity to be
heard before he got shipped off to a
prison in El Salvador.
After that, a federal court judge
ordered the Trump administration to
facilitate the release and return of
Abrego Garcia, and the Supreme Court
affirmed that order.
Then, Attorney General Pam Bondi went
public and said, "Impossible. Can't be
done. He can't be brought back." And
then they brought him back.
I guess it wasn't impossible, Pam.
Now, the reason they say they brought it
brought him back was not because we've
been ordered by a federal trial court
judge and the Supreme Court to do so.
No, it's because we indicted him on what
it looks like are some weak ass trumped
up charges to save face. So, we brought
him back because we want to prosecute
him. Prosecute him in federal court in
Tennessee because, you know, he was
caught in a traffic stop years ago for
which he wasn't even issued a traffic
ticket. never mind, you know, being
charged with any crime.
This case is already in the process of
falling apart and it will be exposed as
the pretext it is, I suspect.
So, after they brought him back, there
was a hearing and the court, the federal
court judge, the magistrate judge said,
"You don't have enough evidence to
detain him pending trial." And the
magistrate judge was going to order his
release. So, the Department of Justice,
the Trump administration said, "Oh,
yeah. Well, if you release him in his
criminal case, he's in the custody of
the US Marshalss in that case. We're
going to go ahead and grab him, put him
right back in DHS detention, and we're
just going to go ahead and deport him."
There's a suggestion they may even
deport him to El Salvador where he can't
be deported by an earlier court order.
So the defendant who is facing the
prospect of being released in his
criminal case but being detained
immediately in uninterrupted fashion by
DHS in a deportation case and sent back
to El Salvador said
I don't want to be released
and his lawyers filed a motion delaying
his release because of this unjust ugly
obscene
um shell game that the Trump
administration is playing, right? They
are hoping that they can keep the shells
moving and nobody will actually see
under which shell ago Garcia is at any
given moment. And maybe they'll get away
with this, you know, ugly,
unconstitutional game that they're
playing,
but I don't think so.
I think at the end of the day they will
be exposed for playing, you know, this
horrific game, abusing the rule of law,
ignoring court orders, violating the
constitutional rights of all persons to
due process.
And um you know, Pam Bondi may be
feeling herself now because she's got
Donald Trump, you know, who has her back
at the moment. Of course, eventually he
introduces everybody to the
undercarriage of the bus, doesn't he?
But, you know, it feels to me like my
old professional home, the Department of
Justice, I was there for 24 years on the
inside, has lost its way and is acting,
you know, lawlessly to support the
whims, the vindictive, vengeful whims of
a corrupt president rather than doing
the hard work of the American people.
and they may feel invincible at the
moment because Donald Trump is in power.
Um, but he won't be in power forever and
they will be held to account after
Donald Trump loses power. You know, it's
funny. I I watch what's going on every
day at the Department of Justice. There
were just some more, you know, unlawful
terminations of prosecutors who did the
work they were assigned to do, prosecute
January 6th cases. So, they were
wrongfully terminated. Um, and I think
about
crime more broadly and people who choose
to commit crime. You know, bank robbers
don't think they're going to get caught.
That's why they rob banks. That's why
they commit crimes, but they generally
do get caught eventually. the leadership
at the Department of Justice right now
is doing what it's doing because they
don't think they're going to get caught.
Well, I think once the rule of law comes
back into the light in this country, and
it will, it has to,
um, accountability will come
because justice
matters.
Friends, as always, please stay safe.
Please stay tuned and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow.
[Music]

[admin]

[admin]

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Putin's Attack STUNS Ukraine, Iran Drops BOMBSHELL w/ Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson & Garland Nixon
by Danny Haiphong
Streamed live on Jul 3, 2025 #iran #israel #russia

US wars from Iran to Ukraine have reached a dangerous point of no return and the blow back is happening fast. Former US Marine Corps. Intelligence officer Scott Ritter and former CIA analyst Larry Johnson join the show alongside Garland Nixon for a mega stream on the latest geopolitical developments amid the war escalations of the US-led collective West.



Transcript

Welcome everyone. Welcome to another live stream. It's your host Danny Hi Fong. We have a very big show for you
today as we discuss the number of important victories that Russia has achieved as Vladimir Putin and the
Russian military amplify the special military operation. We now have Lugansk now under full Russian control. And the
Western mainstream media is in panic as Russian forces continue to make gains in the Sunumi and Perovsk areas. Meanwhile,
Trump's Department of Defense has announced a pause in shipments to Kiev of key weapons. And now both Ukraine and
its most ardent supporters are losing it. As the world braces for Iran Israel
round two, Iran is warning it has yet to unleash its full potential even as Trump
dangles the possibility of supplying B2 bombers to Israel. Those same bombers that attacked Iran's nuclear sites in
late June. How do we make sense of these changes as we move into a long hard summer rife with escalating war? Well,
we have a big show for you today. Joining me is Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst. Uh, thank you, Larry, for
joining me today. You're welcome. Glad to be here, of course. And we have Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and
US Marine Corps intelligence officer, journalist analyst. Uh, both Larry and Scott attest to this identity. Scott,
good to see you. Good to be here. And then we have Garland Nixon. Good to see you, Garland.
He is the host of his own show um on YouTube, which you should all be watching. Uh he's an independent analyst
and geopolitical commentator. Garland, good to see you again. Hey, thanks for inviting me. Of course. Of course. Well,
let's get started with the Ukraine situation because the announcement is that uh certain weapons and munitions
surrounding things like Patriot missile interceptors, Stinger, AIM, air-to-air
missiles, Hellfire and GMRS systems, things that I'll be asking you all about
your expertise of. But first, I want to play what the uh State Department
spokesperson Tammy Bruce had to say in reaction to this Department of Defense
announcement. So, here we go. I wanted to ask about um I understand
the uh the decision on which weapons to provide to Ukraine being one taken at
the Pentagon, but from a diplomacy standpoint, um does pausing the weapon
deliveries for Ukraine uh make it more difficult to get Russia to come to the
table in terms of a peace agreement or a ceasefire because it somehow relieves
potential pressure on that it's a very good question, but it's a it's good that it's not going to be a
factor because we haven't paused sending weapons to Ukraine. This is one aspect,
one situation, one event that has been changed. As you heard from the DoD,
there are multiple robust other options and efforts regarding uh the Ukrainian
situation with weapons. Again, I don't speak for the DoD. I'd refer I can only refer to their statement and so how
about we start with you Larry? Uh what's act what's happening here? Uh what do you make of this situation regarding now
this announcement that has stunned both Ukraine and its NATO backers. Yeah,
she's putting lipstick on a pig. Uh look, the the reality is we have exposed
the war in Ukraine and the our attack on the Houthies and our attack our support
of Israel and its war with Iran and our role in that. It's exposed that the
United States does not have fully stocked warehouses and unlimited supplies of Patriot missiles, dad
missiles, A2, A3s, Javelins, you know, go down the list. 155 mm artillery
shells. Um, we do not have the industrial capability anymore to produce
those in any kind of significant quantities, particularly at a replacement level when when they're used
in combat. Um, I think that's one aspect of this. But the other aspect of we got
a hint um on I guess this is Monday uh
Emanuel Macron calls up Vladimir Putin and you know they talk about Iran and
Israel and then they talk about you know hey what about ending this war and Putin makes one very important point to him.
He says uh you know um the west has got to realize that it's got to stop
supplying Ukraine. Now, was it just a coincidence that within like six hours of that
conversation between Macron and Putin that the DoD announces it's suspending
these shipments of these weapons? Yeah, I'm not a big believer in coincidence.
Uh I think I I think they were somehow connected, but uh you know, the United
States, we're still in a bit of denial. you know, we don't recognize, despite
Trump's claim that we're the biggest, best, strongest military in the world, we're not. Uh we're
Oh, sorry. It looks like uh Larry must have frozen. Larry, please continue. There's Larry again. Yeah, I'm here. All
right. Uh so, you were just saying that the US military is the biggest invest and we're not. So, continue. No, no. So
that was it. I'll I'll stop there. All right. How about you, Scott? What's your reaction to this? Your assessment? You
know, there's been very conflicting messages here. There's Tammy Bruce saying, "Well, there's other options. There's other things that can be done."
But what actually happened here and what is going on? I think what's happening here is that um
we have a defense procurement system
that is um optimized for peaceime operations and
export operations and uh not optimized for the reality of uh highintensity
conflict. Um, you know, we the the Patriot is an expensive system.
Um, originally designed as a um to shoot down airplanes. Um later on it took on a
anti-bballistic missile role but you know the uh you know a lot of our current production
is predicated on the the precedent of the Gulf War where Iraq fired 49 Scud
missiles into uh Israel and another 48 or so into uh you know the Gulf Arab
states. um you know and and the the expenditure rate of the patriot
was um absorbable by onhand stocks and
replenishable by you know the the you know the money allocated for that
purpose. Now we roll into you know the the 20 years of the global
war on terror. Um how many patriots were fired in anger during this period of time. Uh when United States is talking
about the prioritization of budgets um I don't think a high degree of priority
was placed on you know fielding the Patriot system etc. Um, you know, we were working on, you know, getting the
SM3 upgraded to the SM6 so that we could have Aegis uh ships, providing some sort
of ballistic missile defense, but the Patriot, you know, received, you know, some upgrades, but, you know, we we
weren't producing them um and stockpiling them in preparation for uh
what turned out to be a new reality. take a look at the uh expenditure rate
of the Ukrainian armed forces using Patriot to defend against Russian drone attacks and uh and ballistic missile
attacks. Uh it was unsustainable. Uh we we we literally
uh we we couldn't produce them quick enough. We had to borrow them from other nations and we had to draw down our own
stockpiles. Then you throw in um you know the the hoodie throwing a curveball
at us. Um and then the 12-day war with Iran. Um you know, you have a commander
in the Pacific right now who has been told that the United States is pivoting to the Pacific and that he needs to be prepared to um to deal with a Chinese
threat. And um I would imagine that if you receive that kind of instruction from the White House, one of the first
things you do is you pull out the um the op plans and you do an op plan review uh to make sure that we have the forces
allocated to accomplish the mission uh but more importantly logistical sustainability. And I'm fairly certain
that J4 uh went up and raised his hand say boss we run out of ammo in you know
uh D+3 or D+7. But the bottom line is this is an unsustainable of it. We have
to we can't let the national command authority believe that we can carry out
these plans. We have to inform the national command authority that we are incapable of fulfilling the mission
given to us because of logistical constraints. Ammunition depletion. Uh we've given everything away. We have
nobody's replacing it. We can't fight this war. That's what I think happened. I believe that Pacific Command put the
Pentagon on notice that um they're incapable of carrying out the mission
that's being tasked to them. Um and you know unless things are reversed, it's
and I think Central Command did the same thing. Said if you want to continue with this uh highstakes poker game we have
going with Iran, understand this that our forces are literally they can't be
defended. We don't have the ability to defend them over a sustained period of time. um this is grossly irresponsible.
And so then we have to factor in the following. The reality is that Ukraine is not a high priority um mission for
the United States anymore. Um it's not just the political change that's taking place with Trump, but the the reality
that Ukraine can't win this war and that there's nothing that Europe can do and the United States can do uh to reverse
that trend. Uh and therefore uh you're literally throwing good money off, you
know, after bad. um by continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine and in the
process committing suicide. So I think this was a political decision that um if
you are Ukrainian or sympathetic to Ukrainian cause, you need to understand the reality that we have just dumped
you. Um we we aren't going to support you anymore. Um yes, there might be some
um you know, supply streams going forward. I mean, Tammy Bruce obviously um isn't going to
lie, so maybe she can point to, you know, we're providing Xerox paper or something of that nature, but the um the
high value um uh ammunition, the Patriots, the Stingers, the things they
need to fight on a daily basis, um they're not there. And that means that, you know, Ukraine's stocks will reach
zero, which means they can't be defended, which means the Russians will enjoy even greater success. That's the
reality that um exists because we don't have a defense procurement system
capable of beefing up supplies to the Pacific and the Middle East while we continue to uh throw munitions away at
Ukraine. Yeah, it seems we might have lost Larry for a little bit. Uh Bud Garland, uh
your take uh on this uh you know we've been hearing for so long under the Trump
administration for these many months that this Ukraine conflict was going to draw down that they were going to end
it. We don't hear so much about that rhetorically anymore. It's going to end. It's going to end. But uh yet we see
this move. What's your assessment? I think there's two things that I could add and that would be number one of course the obvious and that is that the
empire is overextended. You know, I still recall it must might have been five or 10 years ago, years ago, hearing
Chris Hedges do this uh discussion where he talked about how empires end and he talked about getting in all of these
boneheaded uh military adventures and you know that's how they fall apart and now we're seeing that and I think that
that is linked to what's going on here in that the nature of warfare is changing. You
know, when you design an air defense system, maybe in the 80s or 70s or whatever, you're thinking of planes,
right? Which means the number of planes that a country has is going to be fairly limited. You can probably count them.
Okay, Russia has whatever however many fighter planes, you know, 1500 2,000 fighter planes just as a number. And
then you can say, well, we've got enough missiles to shoot down every one of their fighter planes times five. And okay, you're fine. Now what we have is
where people are using uh drones and missiles. Um it's incompatible with air
defense systems that were designed to shoot down planes. It is not compatible to have that air defense system and to
face missiles particularly when behind your air defense system is the industrial industrial capability to
produce the missiles. not not just to produce the numbers of of missiles, but to produce them at a price that is
affordable that allows you to produce the number that you need. Right? So, what we have now is we have drones and
missiles that may cost anywhere from 10 in some instances $10,000 and less and some up to maybe a million dollars some
of the Iranian drones, but the missiles to take them down are from two to literally $18 million. So, we're seeing
now warfare has changed in a way that the United States is really generations
behind when it comes to air defense. Their air defense is set up to shoot down fighter planes and planes. Some of
these systems that we use, they don't really look much at the low. They're not really good at shooting the low-flying
things because they're boy, these fighter planes and observation planes way up here. We can shoot them down with a missile. Great. But they can be
flooded with drones. They can't produce the numbers. They can't produce them as a at a price. So, not only is this an
indicator of a current problem that we have in it supplying the missiles to
Israel or whatever proxy, you know, Ukraine around the world, and we have far too many, but that one is too many.
but that even as the future goes, we're not going to be able to be the military
power that we once will because we can't produce the numbers at the prices that
would allow us to even be and I don't I use this word, you know, uh uh uh uh uh you know, I don't really like using this
word, but to be militarily competitive in the environment. Just can't do that with $18 million missiles. You're out of
the game. Yeah. And Larry, what what do you think explains why, you know, Russia is very
clear, Vladimir Putin was in a call recently with Donald Trump and he said very clearly that Russia is going to
continue to address the root causes of this conflict and we'll see those all the way through until they are fully
addressed. Um, but the Trump administration uh is unable to despite these kind of
moves to vocalize and be very clear about ending this conflict. even rumors that this ridiculous 500% tariffs that
they're flirting with this uh punishing other countries for supporting Russia over Ukraine. Uh what's your assessment
of this? Why is it that this conflict seemingly continues even when steps like this um occur? These these drawbacks
power and but we're in denial of what we are. Um with the end of World War II uh
we finally we found ourselves thrust into the role of being one of the
world's leaders and in fact it was a competition at that point between the United States and the Soviet Union. But
uh when we declared victory in 1991 uh we've been unwilling to relinquish
that role. Our entire our entire military is built up as an expeditionary force. um is not governed by any clear
strategic doctrine and of national defense which goes to the point that
Garland was making about that you know the weapon systems that are designed
developed produced are are not connected to a a national defense strategy whereas
Russia is Russia is not an imperial military power. They're not going around
the world trying to see where they can project force. They're not uh insisting on setting up, you know, over
700 bases around the world. Uh they, you know, they do have interests close to
home. They do pay attention to what's going on in their borders. Uh but their entire military has been structured
specifically for defending the homeland, not for attacking the United States or
conquering Europe. And you know, we refuse to come to grips with that. And when Putin's talking root causes, what
he's talking about is since the collapse of the Soviet Union, uh the United
States along with its uh NATO allies in Europe have embarked on a campaign to
destroy Russia. Uh the Ukraine has been a de facto member of NATO since 1995.
The only thing they they didn't have to kick in, you know, 5% of their budget to NATO when they didn't have article 5
protection. But other than that, in terms of participation in NATO military
exercises, hosting NATO military exercises, providing a base in Ukraine
at Yavariv for NATO, it it's it's been a NATO entity in in
all regards. So u from that standpoint uh n Ukraine was used as a proxy for
attacking Russia and that's you know that's one of the things Russ Russia is going to put an end to that's going to stop you know that that will not that's
not going to be allowed to continue because if it was Russia's various existence would be
uh looks like we're having a difficulty with Larry's audio uh
Maybe Scott if you want to. Uh Larry, do you want to continue? Sorry, I think you just got back. Yeah. No, I I don't know
where which where where this is happening. I've got a direct line into the internet. I mean, I'm hardwired and
I I shut off closed out every other application. Let me just say for the record, I hate Streamyard. Streamyard
sucks. Sorry. It does. Well, we can Well, we can figure that out. Um Well, let's uh
how about uh Scott, pick this up. you know, the build uh German media recently put out uh right after this announcement
was made on the weapons draw downs, the uh the pause on weapon shipments to Ukraine that Ukraine will only have a
couple of months left to survive in this conflict. Uh give your you know, we've heard this before though that uh the you
know, different pauses and and various problems. there's this panic uh ensuing,
but what's your overall assessment on on where the situation is now that these weapons have been paused?
Well, one thing I've learned um in opining about um you know predictions
uh regarding Russia and Ukraine is that um you can't use traditional
um you know norms and values and templates. Uh I come from a Marine Corps
background, very aggressive background. And I just want to remind people that um during the Gulf War um you know when the
Marines briefed Schwarzkov on the the final ground campaign uh we said we'll be in Kuwait City in 3 days and
Schwarzkov said no your job is to fix the Ukrainians in place. There's no way you're punching through the heaviest
defenses there. Um so he gave it short shift. Meanwhile, Seventh Corps was
floundering in the desert and uh create, you know, creating gaps between it and the uh the Syrians and the Egyptians,
causing an operational pause. Uh we punched through the Iranian lines. We took Kuwait City in 3 days. Why? Because
we're very aggressive because we don't know how to hit the pause button. Um and
so my brain works that way as somebody who helped plan that attack. Um my brain
is a very aggressive brain. So, I have traditionally applied Marine Corps aggression uh with, you know, to the
Russian military situation and the Russians just aren't playing my game,
which is okay. It's their war. Um, you know, I I
think that the Russians are operating on a um on a war of attrition um schedule,
which means that they don't give a damn about the calendar. uh they care about outcomes. Um one of their outcomes is
the physical destruction of the Ukrainian military over time. Um when
they speak of demilitarization, it can be done either through negotiations where the Ukrainians voluntarily
demobilize down to 50,000 men or it can be done uh on the battlefield where
Russia will kill every Ukrainian until they get down to 50,000 men and then they'll surrender and that'll be it. Um
but to put a timetable on this is impossible because uh just again to give
you an example um you know and this is something that the American
military reflect on I think Larry might will hopefully agree um you know the standard when I when I went through the
basic school back in you know 1984 85 um you know the finishing school for marine
lieutenants uh we have a three-day war at the end of it and um you know one of one of the you
missions that we have during the three-day war is, you know, assault against a fortified position. So, you're
going up against a series of uh of bunkers uh that are, you know, have interlocking fields of fire, etc. So,
you have to plan how you're going to take out the bunkers one at a time while shielding yourself from the others, etc.
If you screw it up, you die. I mean, it's training, so you just theoretical death, but um it's one of the toughest
um missions that we we were given. um an assault against a fortified position.
And you know, we would go in with a with a marine rifle company and um and carry
out this uh this attack. Um and that's my brain thinks in that way,
rifle company um you know, appropriate fire support, etc. The Russians don't do
I I've had fascinating conversations with Russian generals Aladdov and others. Um the Russians have re
rethought the whole approach. Um, they do assaults now against a fortified position. Remember, we're bringing a
Marine Corps company against a fortified position held by a platoon because you want 3 to1 advantage. The Russians are
assaulting because the Ukrainians now, they no longer have battalionized defensive positions or company size or
even platoon. They basically talking about a reinforced squad. Um, you know, you're talking about, you know, 11 to 15
Ukrainian soldiers dug into a position. The Russians are assaulting this with
three to six Russian soldiers. They calls it threes and sixes. That's their that's their new term. Um the the lead
assault unit is three Russian soldiers who operate uh together. Uh but they go in with fire support. Um they come in
with drones, heavy drone support. Um and these three guys either die in the
assault, which happens, or they succeed in the assault. Once they seize this fortified position and eliminate the
Ukrainian squad, either killing them um or capturing them, very rarely because
of the drone supremacy does a squad, the Ukrainians escape. Once the Russians lock in on your position, either
Ukrainians kill the Russian soldiers or they all die. Um you know, but if Russia fails in the assault, they lost three
guys. Um which isn't the end of the world. It's tragic for those three. But the point is this is a whole new way of
thinking. Uh, you know, it just boggles the mind that you would attack a fortified position uh occupied by 11 to
15 Ukrainian soldiers um with three guys. But the Russians are doing this and they're winning over and over and
over again. And once they occupy the position, they bring in the sixes who then secure the position and then they
prepare. Generally, they'll secure for a couple days. They'll do a rotation and then they take the next tree line, the
next fortified position. Chunk after chunk after chunk after chunk after chunk. Very successful. And they're
killing a lot of Ukrainians doing this and not losing a lot of Russians. Forget what you read in the in the media. The
Russians are not, you know, drowning in the blood of their own soldiers. Uh it's a very deliberate process that they have
in place here. Um which is resulting in the reduction of the Ukrainian army, but
you're not getting the impressive gains. you know the big arrow gains but the Russians are making significant gains
just the other day 10 and a half square kilometers uh taken in chunks u because
what'll happen is you'll take a tree line and if you didn't get the resistance um then they'll move on and
take the next line and you know and they'll go as long as they can sustain the threes and sixes um you know when
they when they get to a point where the the resistance is too much they don't sacrifice their soldiers in human wave
assaults they pull them back and they pound the crap out of that position They bring up the drones, they suppress the
Ukrainian drones, and they move in and they do it again. Um, this is going to go on forever. As long as the Ukrainians
are able to put a squad on the ground, the Russians will continue to do this for as long as it takes. We can't I I I
refuse anymore to fall into the trap of trying to put a timeline on this. Um,
the Russians are winning this war. There's no way they will stop winning
this war. The one of the major objectives is demilitarization which requires the physical destruction of the
Ukrainian military. You know, there are between 700 and 900,000 Ukrainian soldiers mobilized to this day. The
Ukrainians are able to generate um you know 14,000 more a month. Not the
highest quality soldiers, but they're getting them by bumping them on the head. But they you know it's not just that. That's sort of propaganda to focus
on that. They are recruiting soldiers who go to training uh just like everybody else. They they are
conscripting people. It's not all about thumping on the head. People are volunteering. Some of these people are patriotic. You know, the quality of the
Ukrainian soldier is not uniformly poor. It's actually the opposite. Uh very, you know, quality fighters, well well
equipped. Some of them are well trained, a lot of combat experience. They're they're tough. The Russians are beating
them, but the Russians themselves have said, "We'll go on as long as it takes. We'll go on forever." 21 years. They
bragged about u the the negotiator in Istanbul. 21 years it took to defeat the Swedes. You don't think we can do this
for 21 years? We're ready to go 2, three, five, seven. We are going to do this as long as it takes. And that's the
reality. This is inevitable. This becomes an inevitability. And um you
know it I think Ukraine's defeat will be hastened by the reduction of military support. But understand that Europe is
continuing to pour in uh weaponry and supplies. And you know, every time that they deliver it, that just extends the
war longer. But the Russians are dominating every aspect of this conflict
and there's nothing that can be done to change that. So this war of attrition will continue for as long as it takes.
Well, um, in the interest of Larry's time, we were we're going to get back to the maybe the specifics later in the
show of of this war of attrition. Um and maybe Garland if you're okay with it. I want to begin with Larry on evaluating
we haven't had him on u since and also you two Scott live um since the Iran
Israel the USIsrael uh war of aggression on Iran uh began. And so Larry I wanted
your assessment of where the situation resides now. Iran has uh of course cut
off cooperation with the IAEA. uh it is warning that it will it hasn't
really deployed uh even a significant fraction of its missile capabilities against Israel during those 12 days. Uh
but Israel and the United States uh they are ar rearming uh even the United
States is flirting with sending B2 bombers to uh Israel in order to prepare
it for the next phase of this conflict with Iran. So, Larry, your assessment of
the situation, maybe your evaluation of the 12-day war and where things are now.
Oh, sorry, you're muted. Hold on. You got me unmuted. Yes. Okay. Uh, no. I I
viewed it as ultimately a victory for Iran uh because they survived the
decapitation attempt. um you know the the whole nucle uranium enrichment and
the Iran's supposed quest for a nuclear weapon that's all just a distraction
that that's a red herring. This is this has I think a lot more to do with getting eliminating the Islamic Republic
and replacing it with a regime that's going to be pliant obedient to the west.
um particularly because Iran is in such a critical spot geographically and
economically uh now being part of bricks that candidly it's it's a far more important
member of bricks than Brazil, South Africa who were founding members of bricks and I think you could even make a
case more important than India uh by virtue of Iran's uh natural gas oil
resources and it and its location. Um but uh clearly uh Israel Israel took a
beating u with with respect to the missiles. uh the fact that their sensors
clamp down so hard on on uh the news reporting about what was actually hit.
When you look at it, just I I always say compare what happened between what's
happened between Russia and Ukraine over the last three years, five months. In
that period, Russia's launched, you know, a lot of ballistic missiles, a lot of cruise missiles. They've dropped
bombs. They've hit him with uh tens of thousands of drones. Well, Iran is three
times the size of Ukraine, both in terms of land mass and in terms of population.
And so when it comes to exchanging missiles back and forth, uh Iran shut down Bengurian airport. Israel only has
one international airport. There was no other way for civilians to get out. Whereas Iran had 29 international
airports. in jail. So, so Ron shut Israel shut down, you know, shut down two of them. Well, they still had 27
more that they could operate out of. Similarly with ports, Israel only had the two ports at Ashdad and Hifa. Those
were damaged and stopped operating while the war was underway because the the insurance companies weren't letting
ships go in there. So, all of a sudden, Israel now has cut off from air legs of
supply and cut off from sea routes of supply. Then the refineries, two
refineries damaged. They were both at Hifa and Ashdon. So just on an economic
standpoint, Israel was taking a far worse beating than Iran. I'm not saying Iran didn't suffer any damage, but Iran
could have definitely kept this going and it was an arranged exit. uh the
United States I you know I I don't know the particulars of who approached who and what deals were made but uh you know
the United States got to launch its uh show attack on the on the three nuclear
uh processing facilities uh and then Iran got to do its show at Aldid air air
force base but you know no mass deaths on either side so You know,
I think Iran's now got to be prepared though that this isn't over. Uh the West is coming back. Israel intends to, but
Israel by itself does not have the capability. It needs needs the United States. And so from that standpoint, I
can't rule out the possibility of a false flight.
Yeah. Garland, uh your take, there were some uh especially viewers of this channel who were disappointed that Iran
decided to take a ceasefire. uh but your assessment of the situation as you were evaluating it um what's your take? Well,
you know, I think Iran is in a difficult position and I think the leader of any country is responsible for the people of his country and if and you never know
the direction of war can take. Um Iran was facing up against two nuclear
powers. And so I think that when the opportunity came for Iran to stop hostilities, it took the opportunity and
I think that that was wise. It's easier. It's easy when you're sitting over here on the sidelines to say that somebody
else who's faced off against potential nuclear attack should keep going. But I think they did the wise thing. I think
they did. And and here's the other important thing. They demonstrated the level of a level of morality and a level
of responsibility in this conflict. So that people around the world look at them and will say, "Well,
you said from the beginning, if you stop shooting at me, I'll stop shooting at you." and um you continued to keep your
word. So I think that they looked like they Iran came out of it looking number
one like they were quite able to defend themselves and I think they came out looking like the adult in the room and I
think that was critical for Iran as far as how they deal with their allies and how the rest of the people um perceive
the Iran and internally they want to I put it like this because something my
dad used to always say know how to take a win when they stopped they had
inflicted pain upon on significant pain upon u the very foundational parts of of
Israel, their research and development, their military industrial, their military capabilities, their bases,
their economic and technology. So they had inflicted pain a pain upon their enemies. The US had to kind of go in
there and do a fake bombing to get out. The all over the world people were saying, "Wow, you guys really were able
to um you know put a licking on Israel pretty good." the people in their country were kind of starting to circle
the wagon, say, you know, some of us may have been a little pissed off with the with the government. But you know what? I just saw u a poll where now 77% of
Iranians say they're proud of Iranians missile and drone capabilities. So at that point, they had a win. It was
smart. They took a win. Add to this, they knew at that point that they could, as the Chinese say, they have a really,
you know, a long spear but a short shield, right? They knew that they could inflict pain, but they had some holes in
their air defense system. So, it gave them an opportunity to take a win at home, take a win abroad, inflict pain on
their enemies, and to now have time to regroup because they knew this wasn't just it isn't just over, but they had an
opportunity to regroup, to meet with some of their allies, to strengthen their air defense system, and maybe some
other things that they need to even build more missiles to be able to defend themselves. So I think for numerous
reasons it was a very mo wise move by the Iranians and I'll say this too to go
back after the Iranians. I think the US has to do it because Israel now is
really a paper tiger. Their bases have been splatted. Their um uh ability to to
refine fuel and the jet fuel and all the things they need need is extremely hampered. Uh they've got just so much
damage right now. their ability to even make some of the missiles and things that they need for some of their
systems, the Raphael, their big uh and the Elbbit systems. Both of them were hit. So, I think they were able to cris
uh uh Israel to a point where it will almost have to be the United States to come in and attack them because
Israel couldn't I mean, if Israel started 10 more days, they took 12 days and they were flattened. 12 more days
and it's curtains for Israel if it didn't already curtains for Israel. I think they were wise and I think they um
really were very aly stood for themselves in this conflict.
Yeah. Scott, uh, given what Garland said and what Larry's been saying, uh, maybe you could evaluate, uh, the military
side of all of this, uh, how what transpired and how it ended up
shaping up the way it did because even just very early on, um, in the, uh, uh,
back and forth, Operation True Promise 3 and of course, Israel strikes, uh, there were reports that Israel was running out
of air defenses and then we had the ceasefire uh, 12 after the 12th day. So, uh, your assessment of of what happened
there? Well, when you're speaking about war, there's a there's two things. One, go
back to old Carl von Clauswitz. War is an extension of politics by other means. Um, so, you know, you got to look at
what the political objective was, not just what the military action was. And then another one, just an old truism,
um, no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. So um no matter what
both Israel, United States and Iran were
thinking a conflict would look like, it ended up looking like something totally different. Um when we when we go to wars
an extension of politics by other means, you know, the stated objective of Israel
in attacking Iran, at least initially, was to um destroy its capability to
produce nuclear weapons. And that of course was the United States stated objective. But Israel has since then
acknowledged that this had a regime change component. Indeed, uh, you know, their surprise attack that they
initiated on July 12th, the night of July 12th, um, you know, targeted, um,
the senior leadership, especially the, um, senior conservative leadership of
Iran to include Ali Ham, the supreme leader. The Israelis acknowledged they they were trying to kill him. They
struck some places. They thought he was, he wasn't there. Um, and they continued to hunt them down and hunt him down and
wasn't able to find them. You know, Trump has bragged that um you know, he knows where Hamen is and we could kill
him at any time. He bragged why, unless you had regime change as the
uh as the golden objective. Um and they failed. So that objective failed. So
from a military standpoint, if the true objective of the Israelis was
to collapse the regime, which it appears to be, you look at their um you know,
their their decapitation strikes, and I just want to remind people that um that's a copacetic way of saying murder
because this was a cowardly surprise attack. And I emphasize the term cowardly. It's perity. The very
definition of perity. Um, United States was engaged in negotiations with uh
Iran, good faith negotiations on the part of Iran, which would address the totality of Israel and America's um, you
know, nuclear weapons related concerns. A treaty, not a fatwa anymore, but a
treaty. And treaties, people understand, have verification mechanisms built into it. So, this wasn't just a we'll sign a
treaty, trust us. this was we'll sign a treaty and you have verification
mechanisms in place to ensure that this treaty is accurate and and complied with. Um Iran was ready to do this to
include apparently to allow US inspectors on the ground in Iran. Very big deal. Very big deal. They had been
banned. US inspectors weren't allowed to be part of the IAEA. And now Iran's saying we understand there's a necessity
to do this. Elimination of 60% enriched uranium, reduction of excess cascade uh
enrichment capabilities. Um we could go on and on and on. Iran was doing this in good faith in preparing for a sixth and
decisive round. And Israel said, "Yeah, we're on board with this." And then they launched their attack. This was an
attack against men who were sleeping at home with their families. All right. This isn't hunting down the evil Iranian
general who's out working, plotting to destroy the world. This is a man at home
with his family sleeping when the Israelis struck. Um, killing not just a
number of these officers, but their families. Sometimes if they didn't have the specificity of the intelligence
about which apartment building they lived in, they just dropped the building. Dropped the entire building, killing everybody in it, including all
the other innocent women and children that lived in that facility. So it was a it was a cowardly act carried out by the
Israelis. Um and it didn't work. So war is an
extension of politics by other means. The political objective was regime change and it didn't work. Um you saw
the Israelis after their attempt at regime change try to put pressure on the Iranians saying to the surviving
moderate president um just let us finish the job of destroying your nuclear
facilities and then it will all be over and we'll and Iran was like nah that
ain't going to happen and they retaliated. Now, for the Iranians, you know, they had a plan in place. It's
been in place since 2005, 2006. At least that's when it began. Um, back when they
were afraid that the United States was going to implement Wesley Clark's u, you know,
statement that, you know, seven seven nations in seven years. Um, and Iran was the seventh nation on that. And they
were, it looked like, uh, from the Iranian perspective, the United States was going to, um, to act. If people
recall in the month of March 2006 during the celebration of I think it's nar is
the is the is the holiday um uh Iran shut the nation down went into a war
footing. Now the attack didn't come uh but as part of their preparations Iran divided their nation into 57 different
military districts each of which was um prepared to carry out independent
resistance for up to two years. Um that means that if decapitation took place,
Iran doesn't collapse. The nation is designed to continue even if they don't have um you know instructions from
Thrron. Um and Iran continued to dig in, reinforce a lot of these underground cities you see, uh the missile cities,
etc. are, you know, put into a military district so that district can continue
offensive operations against Israel or Western targets on its own on its own
valition. It doesn't need Thrron. Um so this system was in place and then um
then Israel hit and um you know that plan went out the window.
You know the Israeli regime plan went out the window. That didn't survive. The Iranian uh you know uh resistance with
massive missile strikes taking out the totality of Israel. That didn't happen. Iran was hit hard. They lost air
defense. Um we don't know how many of their missiles were hit, but we know that the Israelis were targeting uh
missile storage facilities. Some of those things were burning pretty bright uh with uh you know
variations in flame intensity implying that uh you know things were burning there like rocket fuel motors. Um
so Iran had to adjust and they you know they they made the adjustment. Um,
Israel did something that um, nobody had predict. Well, nobody, but I'm I'm not going to take total credit, but I
remember during I was talking with uh, Professor Morande right after the assassination of Haneier. Maybe it was
on your show, Danny. Uh, and I said um, you know, you're they just used a drone
to assassinate a senior um, Hamas official in Thran on inauguration day.
That means they can kill anybody they want to at any time. Um, do you understand? And and I told him straight
up that the attack that will take place against Iran will be a decapitation strike. It will begin with a
decapitation strike and Israel just told you how they're going to do it with these drones. And he's like, "Ah, don't worry about it. We got that all under
control." Well, you didn't have it under control. The Israelis used drones to carry out a decapitation strike and you
weren't ready for it. And when you uncovered it, you realized the Israelis, this isn't just one or two drones. They
had entire drone factories. They had warehouses full of tens of thousands of drones all over the country and they use
them very effectively to take apart the Iranian air defense system. Um, and so
Iran now is dealing with a situation where they're trying to carry out a, you know, ballistic missilebased campaign
against Israel, but they have to deal with the fact that Israeli aircraft and drones are able to penetrate Iran and
start hunting these missiles down. That changes your strategy and your tactics as well.

And then the final thing the
Israelis were able to pull off was being able to fly from Syria into northern
Iraq, dog leg up in Azerbaian, come in and attack Thrron from the Caspian Sea.
Iranian air defense wasn't ready for that. Um, and they were, the Israelis were able to do extreme harm to to Iran,
hitting them really hard. Um, and so from the Iranian perspective, yes, they're they're pounding the Israelis.
They got their act together. They they were able to get the campaign up. They're gathering intelligence. They're hitting the targets that need their
heart. And Israel's getting hurt, but Iran's getting hurt, too. And the Israelis has some tricks. You know, they
they penetrated the Iranian secure communications facility, were able to, you know, lure Iranian officials into
known locations before hitting them with a bomb and, you know, killing or wounding a number of officers that way.
Um, so from the Iranian perspective, you know, this is a war that's rapidly spinning out of control. Iran was not in
control of this conflict. They were in control of the strikes against Israel, but they definitely weren't in control of what was going on inside Iran. And
this that's a dangerous situation. The Israelis likewise weren't in control. They could bomb Iran, but they were
getting pounded. They weren't in control. Both sides were punch drunk fighters desperate for the fight to be
to be called. And the fight has been called. So where are we now? Um I think
Iran has the upper hand. uh one because they retain the ability to strike Israel
and there's nothing the Israelis can do to prevent that. Um you know no amount of flying in ballistic missile defense
systems is going to change the fact that Israel had all the ballistic missile defense systems it needed for those 12 days and they couldn't stop the
Iranians. Uh but now you know the the Mossad's drone capabilities have been
eviscerated so they won't have that you know are they going to pull something else out of the bag? I don't know. It
took them 10 years to put that one in there. That they lost a tremendous capability. That was supposed to be the
Sunday punch and it failed. Um the dog league out of Azerbaijan,
that's not going to work again. Um you know, Iran has gone to China and if the reports are right, they got 40 JS10 uh
fighters coming in. Uh these are advanced fighters with advanced systems with advanced radars and you run a
combat air patrol over the Caspian Sea and anything comes in the Caspian Sea it will be shot down. Um so the Israelis
lose that. Uh I imagine the Iranians will get their air defense system back up. If the Iranians are smart and I
believe they're some of the smartest people in the world, you know, on day one when they wake up and go, "Damn, the
Israelis are taking out all of our radars." Rather than doubling down and going deploy everything, I think they
went withdraw everything. preserve as much as we can until we
figure out what the hell is going on here because things are just blowing up. And so I think Iran will re-examine what
needs to be done. You're not going to get that knockout punch again. And I I think if there's a future conflict,
Israel is going to get pounded into the dirt again. There's nothing they can do to stop that. And Israel's ability to hurt Iran will be severely curtailed. So
um I think this is advantage Iran altogether with one thing and I'll just leave it at this. Um, I think Iran is
foolish, fatally so, to even suggest that they could produce a nuclear
weapon. Um, I told again, I think I was on your show and others back in back in
the fall and I said, you know, you are inviting an attack from Israel and the United States that you will never be
allowed to have nuclear weapons ever. Never. Don't even think about it. Um, and the fact that they went up the
threshold capability. I told Mirandi um on this show, I think I did on on Nema's
show, too. You're going to get attacked because of this, and they did. And I
will state as simply as I can, if Iran produces a nuclear weapon, Iran will be physically destroyed by the United
States of America. And we will use whatever means necessary to achieve that. I don't care what anybody thinks.
Iran should have a weapon. They should be allowed to. I don't care what you think. There's only one vote that
matters here and that's the United States that says you will never have a nuclear weapon ever. Iran is in a strong
position right now. I believe that they have a lot of leverage against the IAEA in order to get a reform of that
inspection process. I think Iran has enough leverage to retain an enrichment capability through negotiations. Um but
if Iran thinks as even Mandi suggested that they could build something in secret,
how do you think the Israelis penetrated Iran? Why do you think they got into the secure communications? You really think that Iran can hide this from Israel and
the United States? I can guarantee you. We will know when the decision is made to produce a nuclear weapon. We will
know it and then we will act. And this is where everybody has to stop the nonsense about saying it's time for Iran
to have a nuclear weapon. It's okay for Iran. They're justified. It's an act of suicide and that's a guaranteed outcome.
Guaranteed. Uh, Larry, I know that you're uh short on time, so I definitely want your final
comment. Sorry, you're muted. Hold on. Okay. Yeah, I've got to go here in a couple of minutes. Uh, sure. I would
just say this that um what was proven out of all of this is that the myth of
Israeli invincibility was destroyed and the myth of US military power was
also damaged. You know, we couldn't stop the Houthies. We launched this one raid
on uhh on Iran and then you know called it a day and took you know again just as
Trump said hey those Houthies capitulated man those Iranians capitulated but the fact is Iran was not
asking for the ceasefire it was Israel and you know so I I agree with Scott
that um you know Iran did did suffer some major damage but it's a it's a much
bigger country can absorb Just like a big guy can absorb more
blows from a child that a child can from a big guy. And it's sort of the same principle. I apologize for bailing out.
I'll see you Garland in about an hour. Scott, always a pleasure, brother. Thanks. All right. Bye. Um
All right, Garland. uh your assessment then you know given all that uh we've talked about um with regard to Israel
Iran of course USI Israel's war of aggression on Iran and the possibility of course of another phase another round
coming our way well a couple of things I'll say this um we know that a lot of
countries Russia does not want uh Iran to have a nuclear weapon and with a lot of uh particularly with Russia who I
think is you know they're an ally with Iran it's not about whether Iran has a right to which under okay sure and
whether they've been attacked and whether they okay fair enough right you can make that argument the issue that Russia has and that a lot of people have
is this and that's for the overall safety of the world in that you know if
they get one that Saudi Arabia has the money and they're going to say we got to have one of course Turkeykey's got to
have one UA is going to and what you're going to have is a really really heavily nuclear armed Middle East which is a is
a problem I know. Yes, Israel has one. Well, we should be trying to go in the other direction, not forward. So, I
think a lot of countries are not just looking at whether Iran has the opportunity should have the opportunity
to defend themselves with the nuclear weapon. It's man, if that happens then, and you've got countries such as, and
here's one of the discussions. If there was a major war, some of these countries like UAE or Saudi Arabia potentially
could fall because you've got countries where 98% of the people, the people on the streets are, you know, uh, agree
with the Palestinians, but where the government kind of goes along with the West and helps defend missiles coming into Israel, etc., which means in a
major war, these countries, some of these countries could fall. There are a lot of people who have said, look, you know, who knows if these countries are
even going to stand with what's going on in the Middle East. So, what you could eventually have is countries like Saudi
Arabia, the UAE with mi with missiles and completely unstable governments,
maybe, you know, ISIS type, who knows what, and now they get missiles. You just don't want these things to happen.
So notwithstanding Iran's right to defend themselves, there are a lot of other factors that countries like Russia
and major other countries are taking into account here saying how can we do this in a way that this nuclear
proliferation thing um doesn't you know get out of
control and I think that's a responsible way to look at it. I but when I look at the attacks on you know one of the one
of the discussions when you talk about the Samson option um the US doing
something like using a nuke the straits of Hormuz closing down right and that is the US empire the question becomes would
the US empire swallow a po you know swallow a suicide pill right in a lot of these instances there are things that
can happen that would obliterate to use one of Trump's favorite words the entire
western um uh economy. And at that point, you ain't really an empire anymore. I don't
know what you are, but but I always say this, the ruling elitees biggest fear is always internal uprising, a revolution,
that the people will go so nuts that they'll go crazy and just start, you know, tearing the place apart, burning
things down. In any event that the United States as pampered as US people are and they're angry right now that
things aren't going so well economically and if they wake up tomorrow and it's $13 a gallon for gas and hyperinflation
and you need a wheelbarrow full of dollars to buy a wheelbarrow just to carry your dollars then uh this place is
going to fall apart. So I think that there is certainly a concern
amongst the people who run this country that we got to kind of step lightly because do we really want to say we
believe in this so much that we're willing to wipe out the entire western economy. We'll lose power. We could be
killed. Everything that we this empire all of this stuff that we are like oh this is great could disappear. So, I'm
always I have a great question as to whether the US will will do something to swallow
the suicide pill. Some people, oh, we'll nuke so and so or we will, you know, attack Russia or whatever. I think the
last thing they want to do is swallow swallow a suicide pill. But, but then again, you never know what you I'll put
it like this. If you're on the other end of that suicide pill, you can't really say for sure whether they will or not.
The thing I think is this, and this is what keeps coming back to me
when people say Israel is gearing up to attack Iran again. Israel really took
some hard hits and Israel as we knew it is as it's not the same Israel. If all
of your bases have been hit really hard, it if your um refineries have been hit
really hard, if the things that produces your missiles and tanks and all of that are splattered and you're trying to
rebuild them in 12 days, so you're going to go back and you're going to say, "Well, this
time we ain't going to have the jump on them. This time we ain't going to have 12 hours with no air defense system so
we can smack them all." And this time they've had time to prepare for some of our tacticus and some of the things
we're doing. So we're going to go now and we're going to fight them toeto toe. So we're not going to have the same
success. And we know they're going to open up on us from day one. Maybe harder. So if we're kind of after 12
days saying a little bit of uncle, they're se literally Iran is 78 times
bigger than um Israel. So, Israel can't go into an attrition war with somebody
78 times bigger than them. So, what are they going to do? Another 12 days? They were almost destroyed in 12 days. So,
okay, they're going to attack again and in 12 days, 14 days. And not to mention that the damage done in 12 days would be
exponential over the next, it wouldn't just be the same amount of damage 12
days. It would be like somebody gets a like a boxer gets a cut. Somebody keeps hitting that cut. Why? because they know
it's going to get worse and worse and bleed so bad the person will have to go out, right? 12 more days will be 10
times more than the first 12 days. I'm not going to say they won't. They may. I don't know. I don't see how the hell
Israel can do it. I think the US would have to do it. And I don't know. I think Trump really got scared by some of the
MAGA people freaking out. I think he really got scared by saying this. I think he really got scared by the um
potential for closing the straits of Hormuz. There's a lot of people that want to Will Trump make the decision to
get another slice of that pie? I I'm not sure he will. Or whoever is making the decision. I'm not sure they will go back
down that road. Maybe they will. I don't know. I'm not 100% sure they will. Scott, final question uh before we uh
pivot back. Um, will would B2 bombers to Israel make a difference?
B2 bombers to Israel is an act of treason. Um, it's insane. You have two insane US
congressmen talking about this. Um, the B2 bomber is a strategic weapon system,
highly classified. Um, the idea that we would give it to Israel
is just ludicrous. Um, I just want to remind people that, you know, let's not forget about the USS Liberty, but that
that's not the worst of what Israel has done. Israel spies against us all the time. Um, betrays us. Uh, people go
ahead and look up the Lavi fighter, LAVI. Uh, that was Israel's, uh, answer
to the F-16. Um, you know, that they were going to procure, produce their own fighter, but they borrowed extensively
from the F-16, uh, project. We reprided this technology to them under the conditions that it stays in Israel. Lo
and behold, a lavi fighter ends up in China at a research and development facility being reverse engineered by the
Chinese because Israel cut a secret deal with China. Um, Israel sells this out all the time. Um, you know, Jonathan
Pard was a spy uh who was arrested in 1980s. He gave to Israel the crown
jewels of the American intelligence community. that is a book that contained all of the frequencies that we were
intercepting, the codes that we had broken, the codes that we couldn't break, um how long it took to broke the
codes, etc. Everything an enemy would need to know to make themselves secure from our uh signals intelligence. Um he
gave that book to the Israelis and then the Israelis sold it to the Russians in exchange for favorable immigration. The
Israelis betray America 24/7. Um, the CIA and the FBI have long said,
and these are reports that are suppressed, that the number one espionage threat faced by the United
States today is the Israeli government. They spy on us all the time. If you remember, there was a Apac uh had the
controversy back when, I think Ruben and Franklin, two of the Apac people, um, were um, arrested uh, and investigated
for spying. They were passing classified information from the Pentagon through Apac to an Israeli um consular official.
Um they just spy. That's what they do. Barack Obama's White House was
thoroughly penetrated by technical listening devices. Um surrounding the White House, there are technical
listening devices all over the place installed by Israel focusing on collecting information about the
president of United States, about National Command Decision-making Authority. Israel's our enemy. They're
not our friends and you want to give them B2 bombers. Are you high? That B2
bomber, that classified information pertaining to the B2 bomber will be sold to our enemies before you know it or our
potential enemies, our potential adversaries, the people that we were building this bomber to uh you know to
to to respond to. So I I just think this is an act of absurd propaganda, but it
is also an act of treason and it should be treated as such. These people should be investigated. Why are you trying to
give away some of the most highly classified technology in the United States arsenal to Israel knowing that
Israel has a history of selling this information for its own good? Israel doesn't work for the benefit of the
United States. Israel only works for the benefit of Israel.
Yeah. And uh V Scott uh in in the last final segment of the show, how about we
begin with you again uh just talking about the the battlefield situation in Ukraine. Uh the western mainstream media
has been very much up in arms about these massive uh attacks that uh the uh
Russian military has been undertaking on Ukraine and they've also been panicking
about the Sunumi and the DPR DP I can never pronounce it correctly uh uh
front.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

So, if you could uh talk about what exactly is happening on the battlefield now and what can we expect
uh for the rest of this long hot summer? Well, I mean, Russia has said that um
it's I mean, Vladimir Putin apparently had a conversation with Emanuel Mcronone
and he said that um you know, while Russia is not opposed to a negotiated outcome, it will have to deal with
realities including territorial reality and the territorial reality is as such
as things stand Russia's requirements are that all four of the Nova Rosia
territories Keron, Zaparisia, Donets and Lugansky in their totality belong to Russia. and Russia will occupy all of
them including the right bank of Keroson. Um and because of the nefarious
actions of the Ukrainians, Russia will create an appropriately sized U buffer
zone. Um and what we see happening in Sunumi and in Neprosk is Russia acting
on that meaning that they will advance until which time they have created a buffer between what will be left of you
of sovereign Ukraine um and mother Russia. that Ukraine will not be allowed
to have a a common border with Russia because Ukraine has attacked Russia and
Russia is not going to allow that to happen again. Um I mean this is the reality and this is what Russia is
moving forward in his conversation with President Trump today. Putin said the same thing. We will address the root
causes of this conflict and one of the root causes is of course Ukraine's behavior, their their de facto status as
a NATO member. um and you know that will be reversed. And so I I think what we're
going to see this summer is progress um along those lines. But Russia is not
going to throw away human life needlessly. They don't need to. They just this is a war of attrition. Um
Garland and I have had this conversation repeatedly and I'll just say it again. At some point in time, there will be a
culminating moment where Ukraine's ability to maintain cohesive defense along the totality of the front will
diminish to the point of zero and you will see collapse and that collapse will be dramatic. Um I continue to believe
that Russia has the potential of achieving that collapse this summer. Um, Ukraine has shown a tremendous amount of
resilience over the over the years and you know if Russia isn't willing to put
the you know the remember the more aggressive you are the more casualties you take right now Russia has a winning
formula that minimizes Russian losses maximizes Ukrainian losses and Russia's not hasn't shown a proclivity to change
that but if um if Russia decides to put their pedal to the metal they can accelerate the collapse because you you
will you know create mathematical equation which has the
Ukrainians losing resources at a far greater rate than they can be replenished and at some point in time
you achieve collapse. Um but that's a political decision has to be made because to do that to put the pedal to
the metal you're going to increase Russian casualties at a time when I think um the Russian government doesn't
want to um alter the um the support of
the Russian people. Right now, the Russian people have stealed themselves to um the reality of this conflict to
include Ukrainian drones striking uh deep inside Russia. Uh but they've also,
you know, they've they've reached a uh an equilibrium of what kind of battlefield losses can be accepted.
Understand that the Russian losses are um greater than the losses we suffered
in Vietnam. Vietnam broke the back of America. Um the Russian losses are uh
are greater than that. They are you know occurring at a at a larger frequency than Vietnam. So the Russian people have
to absorb real losses, real battlefield losses. And I don't think that Vladimir
Putin wants to change that um you know this equilibrium by you know making the
Russian people absorb even more losses. Um especially when you have a winning strategy, you have an a constituency
that's be supporting you on this war. I think the Russians will just continue as business as usual, threes and sixes
until the Ukrainians collapse. And that could happen this year, that could happen next year, could happen whenever
it happens, but it's going to happen. Yeah. And Garland, what do you say? you
know, we we just had an audience member, and I'll acknowledge uh the super chats later in the show, uh say that um that
we've been wrong about Ukraine, that uh they've been far harder to defeat than we've been saying they are, and uh that
uh Russia is taking massive hits. What is your answer to this in relation to what Scott is saying? And Scott, you'll
also get to answer this, too. Well, I think here's the thing. I mean, you know, this is not again, this is not
Yemen. This is the most powerful NATO army proxy that's ever been created. And
in my opinion, Russia has destroyed it two to three times over. At the same time, Russia has demilitarized NATO in
that Russia in I don't know if it's intentionally, but in the method that they fight, which is a very slow method
of fighting. It's a very uh cautious and uh continuous way of fighting. I think
that they have demilitarized NATO. They have been in it very effective. I mean, it's been it was a million man army and
they've been adding people the whole time. So, let's not pretend that this was ever going to be a cakewalk walk for
anyone um for for Russia, etc. It was it was the combined might of all of NATO
focused and concentrated on Russia. At the same time, there was a full spectrum attack there. Com add terrorist attacks.
You have to add economic attacks, diplomatic trying to make people stop buying things from Russia. So this was a
full spectrum war on Russia and I would argue that given the um size of this
attack on Russia that they have um you know done quite well and the way Russia fights means that sooner or later the
eventuality was that they were always going to win. I don't think Russia was in ever had a calendar here saying we
have to win by this day or that way. It was we're going to do things the way we do them and in the end this is existential and we will win. I also
think that, you know, as an example, supposedly Presidents Putin and Trump talked today and Trump did the old, hey,
you know, like Mcronone, when can we get some kind of a ceasefire? And apparently, President Putin just reiterated what he's always reiterated.
Look, we got to address the underlying issues because the underlying issues are what make it existential to Russia. And
the true underlying issue is that NATO was always a mechanism to destroy Russia so that the NATO countries could go in,
take Russia, break it into pieces, and split it amongst each others and take all of its natural resources. Russia
knows that, I know that, you guys know that, and Russia knows that just ain't going to happen. So, I think that um
ultimately what we're looking at here is I got to add this. I also think that if
Russia didn't already know what they were up against, watching what happened in Iran, seeing the complicity of seeing
the, you know, the things that was done, utilizing various like the IAEA, using
utilizing international organizations as tools of imperialism by the US, uh,
sneaking attacks from other countries inside the countries, lying and saying that we were, uh, we were negotiating a
deal at the same time we're hiding a knife behind our back so we could, you know, get you to look the other way during negotiations and attack you. All
of these things I think have even more convinced Russia we have to hold firm. We've got to do what we know we need to
do. And I think the fact is keep an eye on Russia constantly saying we must
address address the underlying issues because the underlying issues are not just Ukraine. the underlying issue is a
comprehensive s security agreement with uh um Europe that includes getting uh as
they said at the very beginning getting um NATO's military infrastructure off of their border and I think as this
continues they're going to at some time bring up the things that they've said that they said back in December of 2022
which was or 2022 yeah which was we have to address NATO on our border and NATO
expansion and they're going to want to talk about that. And Ukraine is not the only thing that's existential to Russia
and the discussion will come up. I I I also think this I wouldn't be surprised as if at some point we don't see a
Russia, China, Iran, some kind of a military alliance come up. Now, I thought a while back probably no. But
some things that I'm hearing leads me to believe that I think not only will we, I think in order to shut down the crazies,
the hotheads as they refer to them in Washington, they're going to have to do that. So, I my guess could be wrong is
that that may come at some point also. Yeah. Well, sometimes uh even if you
don't want an alliance, uh sometimes an alliance comes uh seeking you. Uh well
uh Scott uh as we uh begin to uh close out here, your final analysis on this uh
the significance of Lugansk uh you know we haven't talked about this yet on the program but given that given that you
know Putin talks a lot about root causes of Lugansk Donett I mean these were huge
in the proliferation and the the sparking of this uh conflict to begin with. So, what's the significance of
Russia? And Danny, I got to run. It's almost 2:30. I got to get ready to grab myself. Okay. Okay. All right. All
right. All right. Take care. All right. Scott, yes. Your final thoughts on this.
Well, I mean, the Dome was the um, you know, the the center of this conflict.
Um, the Domebass is the collective term used for Donetsk and Lugansk. um both
very heavily populated by uh Russianspeaking people, people who um
even though they were technically Ukrainian citizens identified more with Russia than Ukraine. Um and these are
the people that um you know when the CIA backed coup that empowered these
Ukrainian nationalists who immediately declared war on Russian Russian ethnicity, they called them orcs. Uh
declared war on the Russian Orthodox Church. uh declared Russ war on the
Russian language, Russian history, Russian culture. Uh seeking basically ethnic genocide and then acted on it. Uh
you know they uh they they made a move to seize Crimea. They were stopped dead in their tracks. Then they they made a
move. They took over Marople. When you speak of the rape of Marople, it's the literal physical rape of Marople by
these Nazis. Um you know what they call the AOV battalion. Um they have it at
the core of their membership. not western Ukrainians, but people from Cardov uh soccer hooligans who have
bought into this Nazi um you know ideology, but they came into Marople,
physically occupied this city and then raped the women of Marople, drove the
Russians out, imprisoned the Russians, terrorized the Russians while building this literal Nazi edifice. This literal
Nazi edifice. um you know this is the reality and this is what the people of Donets and Lugansk rose up against. They
said no. Now when you when you look at the the map understand that uh when this
conflict began the majority of Lugansk was held by the Ukrainian government. Uh basically Lugans city and uh some
territory to its uh immediate uh west and north uh were under the control of
Lugans People's Republic. But when this war began actually um the special
military operation began the vast majority of Lagansk was um was
taken over uh rapidly. I mean there was heavy fighting. Um Vagner played a very important role in this
but uh you know but there was a a corner of uh of Lugansk that um was heavily
fortified by the Ukrainians. Heavily it was part of this huge defensive line that the Ukrainians had built over the
course of 14 years. 14. Is my math wrong? Huh? 2014. Not 14, eight
marine math. Eight years. Um, and they, this was heavily dug in the Russian, it
was never captured. And, um, it was there this this corner of Lugansk was being held on to. And so symbolically
this was very important for uh for Russia and in Lugansk but also for Detsk
Zaparisia uh for them to you know evict the Ukrainian government from Lugans
from mother Russia because Lugansk is now mother Russia. Um but to show you how you know that this the reality
they're dealing with just today I believe the mayor of Lugansk city was assassinated by Ukrainian nationalists.
um they they they they killed him. Uh the Ukrainians now um because they're so
angry at the Russians, you know, capturing the totality of the Luganska Republic, they've they've they attack
they use highar missiles and other missiles to attack uh Ukrainian
Russian civilians um to carry out to continue their terrorism. the uh
anti-terrorist operation that was initiated in April of um 2014
um continues to this day with the Ukrainian government viewing uh the citizens of Lugansk and Dunyatk as
terrorists and therefore from their perspective there are no civilians. They continue to rain death down on innocent
civilians. And this is why Russia speaks about a um a um the need for a um buffer
zone to protect the citizens of Russia from um you know these criminal actions.
Um but you know it's also you know heartening because now the citizens of Donets know that they're next and then
after Dionetski you'll see the the citizens of Zaparisia know and then Keran knows. Um and the other thing is
it represents an inevitability for the people of Nepetrosk because the Russians will build their buffer zone. Sunumi
will have a buffer zone. Um and if this continues, I can guarantee you that the
Russians will probably extend a buffer zone into Mikav and even into Odessa uh by the time this is done. Uh this is a
reality. This is the kind of reality that Putin is talking about. But now it's more than just um words. We now
have action. we've seen the Russians actually, you know, physically liberate
the totality of one of the four new territories. And um I think it's just part of the inevitable um you know,
advance um that that Russia's engaged in. Yeah. Uh definitely, Scott, you know,
this we've been talking about this for so long. Um and I think uh one final
comment maybe if you could. Uh do you
do you see this uh conflict, Scott, when it's all said and done as being a you
know because we know the US's role, we know NATO's role, US and NATO of course NATO being US being the head uh and NATO
maybe just being the rest of the snake. Um, do we see this as when it's all said and
done, one of the biggest blunders uh in the foreign policy of I guess we call
the combined collective west as our friend Andre Martino would would see it or say. I do. I I I see it as a massive
blunder. Um, you know, let's look at the uh regime change strategy used by the
United States. um with great success against Iraq, great success against
Syria. Um success against Libya. Um they're trying
to apply it in Iran today, but um I think Iran and Russia have something
different um about them. What are the weaknesses of Russia? What what lent
what made Russia vulnerable to western regime change? First of all is the decade of the '9s. Uh the decade of the
'9s broke the Russian spirit and had many Russians flee the concept of mother
Russia. Um you know they fell out of love with Russia and fell in love with the west. So they were already attracted
to this alternative uh in the west. Um the
[Music] they almost the west almost succeeded. Had Yeltson not yielded power to Putin
when he did. Had Yeltson tried to hold on to power for another 6 months, you would have seen a total collapse of Russia and Western goals and objectives
would have been achieved. Russia would have broken up into constituent parts. Um and uh functionally the Russian
Federation would not exist the way it does today. Uh but Putin reversed that and there's been resentment ever since
then. But Putin, even though he reversed it, you know, from the very beginning, Putin was fighting an uphill battle. Uh
first of all, he's fighting against Western oligarchs that controlled the Russian economy in totality. Uh and
Putin had to make deals with the devil. He's acknowledged this. I mean, the the the deal he made with um
Karovski, I think it was the you know, big oil magnate. Um, you know, he said,
"You can keep your money, but you got to invest it back in Russia. You can't take it all out, but you got to stay out of
politics. I can't allow your money to get involved in Russian politics." And Gordonoski disobeyed, thought he could
uh beat Putin at his game, and Putin had him arrested, had his uh empire broken up and taken over by the the Russian
state. Um but this was a constant balancing act with the oligarchs and it was always a problematic because the
with the oligarchs comes corruption and um there was corruption throughout
Russia and there still is corruption throughout Russia. Many of the political structures that exist in the provinces
um are a byproduct of the of the '9s. Their legacy of the '9s. Putin hasn't
weeded them out yet uh because it's almost mission impossible to do under normal circumstances. The other thing
that Putin had to do is um try and build um a Russian
um democratic potential. But this was almost
impossible. We know this because in 1994 the chargy affairs of the US embassy in
Moscow, Mr. Mary, I think his last name was. He wrote uh what is currently referred to as the modern long telegram,
the modern-day equivalent of uh George Kennan's long telegram of 1946 that set
in motion what became containment in the cold war. Um he wrote a long telegram
that was condemning the United States for what it was doing uh by blindly supporting Boris Yeltson. You know,
Yeltson in October of 1993 puts tanks in the streets to uh shell declared war on
the Russian parliament. that's not democratic and yet we doubled down on Yeltson he said we're destroying
Russia's ability to build democratic institutions and this will come back to haunt us and sure enough by the time
Yeltson left there were no meaningful democratic institutions what happened is that you had a number of NOS's uh funded
by you I used to be called paranoid because I say well that's a USAD
national endowment for democracy funded system it can't be tr you're just buying into Russian propag now we know that
literally it's regime change run by the State Department. Um but you know those systems existed. So whenever Putin tried
to build a you know democratic foundation uh the infrastructure it was infiltrated by the CIA. What do you
think Nimsov was? What do you think Navoni was? These are all CIA front operations. Um not designed to build
democracy but designed to bring Putin down. And so as a result you know Russia you know didn't has a fragile democracy.
Um and that's a vulnerability especially when leading up to um you know the the
2022 time period up to 30% of the Russian population um supported Putin
only so long as he maintained the status quo economically which means that Putin could never divorce himself from the
west. he could never, you know, get rid of the western businesses that had
thoroughly insinuated themselves in Russia during the 90s and reinforced that position for the first two decades.
Um, if Putin made a move, you know, he was winning elections, you know, in the
high 50s, low 60%. But you subtract 20 30% support and now Putin's not winning
elections, Putin's losing elections. And um, so Putin had his hands tied.
The mistake we made if we really wanted regime change was not
was was breaking free of this mold. Um we should have been encouraging western
investment. Uh we should have been more clever in what we did with NOS's but instead we we rushed it. 2012 Putin
kicked out all the NOS's calling them rightfully um you know illegal government fronts. 2014 we did the coup
d'eta in Kiev uh installing a nationalist movement that and look at the naivity of Putin even at this point
in time he wanted peace he agreed to the Minsk accords he agreed to negotiations he continued to do that despite the
violations by the Ukrainians uh despite knowing what the United States was up to um he went along with this because he
didn't want a war in retrospect we made a huge mistake because now we know that
Putin wasn't what the west was saying he was this warmongering maniac mega. He was a a leader who was struggling with
serious problems inside Russia, who did not want a conflict with the west and was willing to make whatever compromises
necessary to avoid that conflict. But we pushed the issue. And so what happened
is by imposing sanctions, these severe sanctions regime, we liberated Putin.
The first thing that happened is the oligarchs lost all their power. Putin went, "Thank you very much. I'm happy to
fill that vacuum." And he has and he did it in a way now that has empowered the Russian industrial base so that they're
not prisoners of corrupt oligarchs but now they're prisoners not prisoners but they're servants of a a a fusion between
the state and industry that there is some corruption but it's being weeded out. I mean the anti-corruption
campaigns being run by Putin is is weeding this out. So you're getting um you know industries that serve the state
effectively more effectively than anything that exists in the west. too by imposing these sanctions a total break
with the west that 20 to 30% um people who were like we we want the west we
believe in the west first of all a million or so of them fled all the non
supporters fled most of them have returned because they come to the west and they god the west sucks and they came back to Russia begging forgiveness
but the other ones they're now sided with Putin there is no meaningful political opposition to Vladimir Putin
at all so we've consolidated ated his strength. We've made their defense industry stronger and we've allowed
their military, you know, one of the great learning uh points in this
conflict was the mobilization of 300,000 uh Russian soldiers in the fall of 2022
because what Russia realized at that point in time is that the corruption had even gotten into the mobilization centers. There were some mobilization
centers that were effective and they were able to get uniforms and guns, but there are others where there were no uniforms. There were no guns. Why?
because the corrupt commisa had taken that money and spent it on themselves and now time came to to put it up there.
That's a big problem for Russia because their model of mobilization to deal with a war with NATO is the ability to get
over a million men mobilized very short order and sent to the field and their system was broke. Russia fixed it. They
fixed their training. They fixed their education. They fixed everything. and they're Russian. The military today is a
finely tuned, welloiled machine just chugging along on all cylinders. Is it perfect? Nothing ever is. But it's
better than anything that exists in the West. This was the mistake that the West made, a fundamental error. Russia is
emerged today, a nation that has fallen back in love with itself. Russian patriotism is real. It's sincere and
it's not shallow. It's a patriotism that um is linked to their religion. Uh the
rise of the Orthodox Church in Russia is is very critical here. It's linked to an
appreciation of their culture, their history, their you know the things that have defined Russia for uh over a
thousand years are the things that the Russian people today believe in and they are more unified than ever not just about Russia but about the the man who
leads them, Vladimir Putin. So we made a fatal mistake in engaging in this conflict because if our goal and
objective was to weaken Russia or somehow bring you know make Russia more compliant to western uh needs, wants and
desires, we have failed. Today Russia is totally unplugged from the west. They're totally self-sufficient and they're able
to function in a they've created an alternative universe, a multi-olar world
that's populated by, you know, China, India, um you know, Brazil, South
America, all of Africa almost, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the the
world is coming into this uh into this orbit. And that's the that's the massive failure of the United States and Russia.
And I think we're making the same mistake with Iran. um rather than taking advantage of a moderate president who is
ready to have negotiations and and and and and infiltrating ourselves into Iranian society and bringing it down
from within by playing to the natural proclivities of a pro-western audience, we've destroyed any potential of a
pro-western audience, gaining foot in Iran today. We've empowered the theocracy uh to a degree that has never
been empowered since its founding. Um and Iran is a stronger nation today. Uh so we made a fatal mistake there. uh
pretty much modeled on the fatal mistake we made with Russia. Yeah. And this latest uh 12-day war as it's being
called, I guess, I think was a huge I think if there's any, you know, all the things that we talked about the you
know, of course, Iran took hits, but that might be the biggest consequence of all of this is having a population over
over 90 million, almost 100% behind their government and whatever it decides
to do to defend itself from further aggression. Scott, it was great to be with you today. Where can people find
you? I have your YouTube channel in the video description as well as Larry's and Garland, but uh Well, well, I still have
a YouTube channel. I mean, yes, you do. I you've been putting up regular rants,
but yeah, talk about it. I'm going to just say thank you to all the super chats and put them up as you talk. No, I
mean, you can find me on Substack, uh, real Scott Ritter. It's scottritter.substack.com.
That's where I post um you know my writings and um and videos including Ritter's Rant. Um I have a YouTube
channel. I have a Telegram channel where I put out the uh the Russia House which is uh it's a very unique uh interview
based um um podcast where we interview um you know Russians of of a serious
nature about critical issues. We're we're publishing one this week that gets into the religious dimensions of the
Ukrainian Russian conflict. It's uh it's something that you don't hear anywhere else. So uh that would be um you know
people can support by subscribing there. Um and I've got a new book out. Um it's
uh you know the Highway to Hell, the Armageddon Chronicles 2014 2025. Um it's
more relevant today and I'm working on a project project 38 which is a campaign to get uh arms control back on the
agenda. At the heart of it is a documentary film 38 Minutes about the uh
the terror of uh in Hawaii on January 13th, 2018 when they thought they were
going to be hit by a nuclear missile and how that translates into the need to prevent these missiles from flying which
means we need arms control. So um it's a project that's going to take the form of a campaign. Um and um who knows maybe
I'll even go back to Russia in August. We'll see. That would be incredible. Um, all right
everybody, thank you all for your super chats. We're going to head out. I'm actually here working the holiday tomorrow, 2 pm Eastern time. You'll see
me with Greg Stoker, Manar Adley from Mid Press News, Elena Sena, um, as well.
So, we'll do a little fourth stream. 2 PM Eastern. See you then. Once again, thanks Scott, thanks Garland, thanks
Larry Johnson. Uh, the other two had to leave a bit early for other commitments. And now I'm going to let Scott go here
to get to the rest of his commitments. Take care everyone. See you tomorrow.

********************************

This Is What Real War Looks Like | Scott Ritter
Yemek Zamanim
Jul 3, 2025



Transcript

in the past two hours. Russia will not deviate one iota from
its goals and objectives when it comes to uh solving the root causes of this
conflict. And Russia has articulated this quite clearly to the United States what these are inclusive of Russia
inclusive of Russia's territorial demands. Um uh inclusive of Russia
seeking a massive reduction in the Ukrainian army, a change in the Ukrainian government. um you know no
NATO membership u basically Russia's not yielding on any of these fundamental points and uh based upon the readout
Trump didn't push back. Um so when you combine um when you combine what is a
clear statement of um you know political will on the part of the Russians with
battlefield reality which has the Russians uh continued to advance um
across the entire line of contact. um you know, continuing to pound Ukrainian
industrial infrastructure um military sites uh at will. Uh
and now the news that the United States is not going to be providing with Ukraine with critical um ammunitions,
you know, some of the most critical, the uh the Patriot air defense missiles um being first and foremost. This is a
desperate need on the part of Ukraine for these missiles. Um, and without a continuous resupply, Ukraine's
stockpiles will reach zero very soon. And then they're literally defenseless with no no option, no opportunity to
defend themselves. The Patriot is the only system that can shoot down um not all the time, but it's capable of
engaging and downing certain categories of Russian ballistic missiles. You eliminate the Patriot and these missiles
will hit any target they want, anytime they want. Um and that would be devastating for the Ukrainians, but also
uh artillery munitions, highars, the um particular kind of uh um you know the
the the special kit to the uh to the you know ballist to the rocket launchers. Um
these are being denied. Why? Because the United States has basically taken its own stockpiles down to dangerously low
levels, zero in some cases, making the United States incapable of um fighting
and sustaining a um a winning war against a peer level opponent like China
in the Pacific. Um and this is fatal to Ukraine. This will be I mean Ukraine's
already a hospice patient, you know, but hospice can go on for a long time. Um, I
think the denial of these munitions to Ukraine puts the hospice patient in the bed um on life support and it's just a
question of when um the plug is going to be pulled. Uh Larry, you did some terrific research on exactly what was
being held back. Is this symbolic, substantive, or because we really are
running low of our own supplies? Oh, no. We're running low. What what the special
military operation has exposed is that the United States is no longer capable
of ramping up production to engage in an
industrial modern war. Um, you know, think about what you just said. That is
that is monumental. Well, you know, my I used the statistic
before, but I it's noteworthy. Right now, we can build an F-35
in 18 to 24 months. Okay? And it's it
cost I think the works out to be like $200 million for that. Well, you know,
go back 80 years. In 1944, we were building B24 Liberator bombers.
uh we could assemble it in 63 minutes, build the and have the plane ready to
fly in 18 hours. So, we've gone from that to these very technologically
sophisticated, highly complex, dependent upon rare earth minerals coming out of
China and and and spending literally hundreds of millions and billions of
dollars on stuff that breaks and gets destroyed more. So, uh, what we
discovered is like with the Patriot missiles, Lheed Martin produces 550 of
those a year. But then we got out in the battlefield conditions and found out,
God, uh, Russia's just fired off 50 ballistic missiles, escanders.
And so, uh, Ukraine's going to have to fire at least two Patriot missiles or
maybe three for each one of those is Scanders. So, let's see. 3 * 50. Yeah, that's 150. See, we're not real good at
math. That's the problem. Um,
uh, Scott, what do you think Trump thought he was going to accomplish talking to Putin? Does he really think
he can talk Putin into some kind of a standill when Putin's goals have been
clear, consistent, systematic, and unchanging since before this started, going back to
the agreement in Istanbul? Well, you know, we don't I haven't seen a readout from the White House yet. I've
seen Peshkov's uh readout and I've seen Ushikov's readout to um Peshkov the
press secretary and Ushikov the foreign policy adviser to uh to to Putin. Um
I don't think Trump according to this readout Trump wasn't pressing Putin for anything. Uh Putin made a clear
statement. Um it seems that the focus of this effort was a re-engagement. If you
remember, um Trump um the Trump administration halted the uh ongoing
negotiations that were taking place. Um and um they did it and because I think Trump was frustrated with Putin. You
remember he was uh talking about how he had a Putin problem and how he may have to show Putin and sanction Putin and you
know talking tough and Putin just went so what? Um, and I think Trump's at the
point now where he realizes that um, that's just not sound that's not a sound approach. And so what appears to be
happening is that um, Trump reached out to talk. And let's look at the what what they talked about. First, they spent a
lot of time talking about Iran in the Middle East. And I think Trump is waking up to the fact that Iran is a problem
that isn't going to be solved unilaterally by the United States militarily. that um to avoid the kind of
war that Trump promised the American people he wasn't going to get entangled with, he would he'll need help from
Russia and Russia's prepared to provide that help. So I think they had an initial discussion upon that um on Gaza.
Um you you also see them talking about you know just the sort of normalization
things. I I was taken in by uh one of the final points where they want to
exchange movies that show each other in a positive light. You know, this is critical. Um maybe it's the you know
maybe Trump is finally being advised by people saying that we have a russophobia problem here in the United States that
for too long the US government uh the media and others have been um you know
describing Russia in very crude inaccurate terms so that the American people have a skewed or fundamentally
flawed vision of what Russia reality is. And so they're talking about this this kind of stuff. I I what I saw was a a
lot of talk about everything but Ukraine. And um I think that is a sign that Trump is
getting refocused on the absolute strategic requirement of the United States having good relations with
Russia. Uh Larry, what do you think Putin and Mcronone
uh talked about? and and is is that uh as a result of the Ukrainian use of
French missiles that may have killed Russians? Well, uh, you know, I think really
what's going on is the West has awakened that to the fact that they've now blinded themselves with respect to the
status of Iran's uh, enrichment program because previously, you know, I I don't
think it's a mere coincidence that the initial judgment of the intelligence community in 2003 that Iran was not
building a nuke coincided with Iran accepting IAEA inspections and signing
on to the NPT. I believe that's when they signed on to the non-prololiferation treaty. But and and
it's for a very important reason. IAEA provided intelligence, first official
intelligence about the status of Iran's nuclear program. But we also know now,
thanks to reporting by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate on the gray zone, that
foreign intelligence organizations, the Brits and Mossad in particular, but I'd be willing to wager that the US was also
involved, had penetrated the IAEA and was also passing on information and able
to collect information that went beyond the IAEA mission. So now all of a sudden
Iran's kicked them out and you know the United States and Israel said you got to
you got to let them back in. What leverage do we have? You know what? We're going to come bomb you again.
They're not afraid of that. And and so these conver and remember was it about 10 days ago that Donald Trump they asked
a question about Putin and he the smartass that he is he popped off about
I told Putin he needs to he needs to worry about his own problem. We don't need his help on Iran.
Oh yeah? How about now? Now he needs Russia's help with Iran to try to keep
Iran on the IAEA program. And Russia's
Russia says, "Sure, we'll help, but there's going to be there's a price for the help." And you know, Putin's no fool
when it comes to these negotiations. And the same thing with with the conversation with Mcronone. Again, Mc
Mcronone, what he was really angling for was to see if Russia was softening at all on the latest demands. And Putin, in
fact, said, "Hey, um, we got to negotiate over the root causes of this
war, and you have to accept the new territorial realities."
And that means wherever Russian boots are, that's now Russian territory.
Uh, I got to play this clip for you. I don't know if you've seen it because we've played it a few times. It came out
after each of you uh were on with me earlier in the week, but it's really uh
a headscratcher. This is Senator John Kennedy being interviewed by someone at
CNN, and what he says is truly uh astounding, particularly the last three
words that he uses. He's talking about a briefing that the United States Senate was given. You'll note the conspicuous
absence of the person who by law is supposed to be the chief briefer. She's not there. But uh what he says at the
end is mindboggling. Chris, cut number seven. Before Israel and America did
what we did, Iran was within days of
having a nuclear weapon. Now days. Within days. That's in this
briefing. with within days. Uh sir, just to kind of circle back and
and put a finer uh point on this, the days that they were to getting a bomb
that seems to be different from what Tulsi Gabbard had testified to in March,
was there a new assessment? Was that the Israeli assessment? Was that a new American assessment? Was that
information new to you in this briefing? It was new to me. Uh, this was this was
a good briefing. It was one of the best I've ever attended. I mean, Rubio, Heads Seth, Ratcliffe, General Kaine, they
they didn't bring out a script and read carefully from it. They just they just looked us in the eye and talked to us.
The assessment that said that Iran was within days of having a bomb. Is that Israeli or American assessment? I don't
know. Surprise you, Scott? I don't know. And I guess I didn't ask.
Well, you know, again, I'm not going to judge. I've been very clear. I I wrote an article that was published in
Consortium News in October of last year um that said Iran is days away from
having a nuclear weapon. And people are like, well, we've heard that for 20 years. Well, you didn't hear it from the Iranians. And that's the difference. You
see, in October of last year, the Iranians were saying they were days away from having nuclear weapons capability.
And I'm talking about the IRGC general in charge of nuclear security. I'm talking about the former head of the uh
of the Iranian nuclear program. I'm talking about senior adviserss to the supreme leader uh senior members of the
national security committee of the Iranian parliament. They all said Iran has all the components already has all
the components necessary to produce a nuclear weapon um other than the file
material and a political decision. That was October. And I said at the time,
this is a very dangerous posture for uh for Iran to take because what it does is it feeds the paranoia of people in the
Trump administration, people in the in in Israel that it allows them to justify an attack on um on Iran. And again, Iran
doubled down on stupid in my book by making even additional claims in uh in January. It got to the point, Professor
Morandi, who I respect dearly, um, had to acknowledge upon questioning when I
was in a debate with him, he said, "Yes, we have positioned ourselves to be a nuclear weapons threshold state." Boom.
End of story. Once you're a threshold state, you might as well be a nuclear state. And it doesn't take much convincing even to a, you know, brain
dead idiot like Senator Kennedy to uh, suddenly realize, and it doesn't have to be an Israeli assessment. I believe it
was an American assessment. I believe it was Tulsi Gabbard's assessment. If you read the totality of her statement, she
said that we have no evidence that Iran has uh you know made the decision to to
to make a nuclear bomb. That's true. We have no evidence that the supreme leader has reversed his fatwa. That's true. But
later on she said we are concerned about the 60% enriched uranium because you're just one enrichment cycle away from
weapons grade. We're concerned about the uranium the ability to convert the uranium hexaflloride at 92% into uranium
metal. We're concerned about that. were concerned about other things. This is all this is all true. It you didn't have
to work hard to find a justification to bomb Iran and um you know you didn't need the Israeli intelligence. Okay,
Tulsi wasn't there but she should. But I just will say this, the thing that mitigates any justification for this is
that the United States had in April 14th, I believe, begun engaging with Iran uh about resolving these issues.
And we know uh around June 10th that Iran had committed to signing a treaty
which would they would commit by treaty which means verification by the way. Treaties just don't happen in the blue.
So verifiably commit to not ever having a nuclear weapon. They would allow US
inspectors to participate in the IAEA inspections and to participate in the verification of the noar weapons. they
would get rid of their 60% enrich remaining, commit to a 3.75% cap, reduce
the number of centrifuges they had. The bottom line is the Iranians said any fear you had that we posed an imminent
threat will now be resolved. It would be gone. All of those terms that you just
articulated were blown away by Trump figuratively and literally on June 21st
and 22nd. On June 12th and 13th. Well, all right. whenever whenever the Israelis attacked
and then the Americans, right? No. Yes. We and I mean it it's it's amazing how
stupid because now we have a situation where the Iranians again I if I were advising this supreme leader I would say
please don't play with fire because this war happened because of you because of your stupidity uh you know because of
the words you said. So be very careful with your words. But when Professor Morandi speaks of now Iran be able to go
forward without anybody knowing, I'm here to tell you right now, we will know. How does Israel get the
penetration they did of Iran without having the MSAD, you know, in important areas? They penetrated the secure
communications of the Supreme Leader and his inner circle so they could track them. The CIA has a mission center in
Azerbaijan working with the Israelis with the same level and they they have to know that if they make a decision to
pursue a nuclear weapon, we will know and we will act. I I think they should instead focus on rehabilitating the IAEA
to get rid of Raphael Gross to change um the the the way the IIA works. Israel
should never be allowed to interface with the IA on any level any level. When I was there, I I met with Israeli
ambassadors. I met with an Israeli intelligence officers about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program together with
the IIA officials, the head of the IIA action team. Um, there's a reason Iran wasn't allowed, Iraq wasn't allowed to
have a nuclear program, and Israel was concerned about that. But the question everybody asked is why is here? We know
they have a vested interest, but shouldn't they join the MPT? This is where I think Iran should put its focus
on rehabilitation, getting safeguards where they are, and getting back on the track of 3.75% enrichment, no threat of
a nuclear weapon. But, you know, Iran was attacked. They have every right to be um upset with the way things are
going. Larry, uh Trump is hosting Netanyahu this week, starting Monday, right after the Fourth of July holiday.
Do you think he understands that Netanyahu will never be satisfied until
Iran is reduced to a Libya or a Syria? Yeah. No. No. And I and I think Trump,
frankly, is complicit with it. You know, he he went he knew that this attack on
the 13th was going to take place, which is why, you know, when it looked like it had succeeded in decapitating the
Iranian regime, he was out all smiles. I knew everything. I knew the exact time.
Yeah, I knew it all. He was very insistent on that. But what it turned
out it didn't decapitate and deactivate the Iranian government when the Iranian
government started retaliating and its missiles were shredding Israeli air defense. Remember Trump then did a
turnabout. He became Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. He knew nothing. I didn't know anything about this is so
boy this is all a mystery to me. And the fact that he allowed it to go on
two days before they were supposed to meet, US and Iran was supposed to meet again and negotiating the agreement that
Scott was describing. So, you know, this was this is not about the nukes. I maintain
this is about regime change because if the concern was about an Islamic country
having a nuke, well, you ever heard of Pakistan? And in fact, when it comes to terrorist attacks out of Pakistan
compared to Iran, Iran is not the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world. You can make a case that Pakistan is.
Gee, who were they hosting up in up in a one city in Pakistan? Oh, that would be
Osama bin Laden. And this recent terrorist attack into Kashmir. Where did
that group come from? Pakistan. So terrorism, Islamic country with a nuke.
That's not what this is all about. This is about taking out Iran. And Israel
conveniently forgets that from 1980 through 1986 uh Israel was selling weapons to Iran to
help Iran fight uh against Iraq. You know, there's a little bit of history
that people like to ignore. Scotty, what do you think Netanyahu is going to try and get from uh Trump next week?
Well, first of all, you have to understand that every time Netanyahu visits the United States, there's a domestic political agenda for him to
wrap himself to be cloaked in the flag of America, which implies um the support
of America. Netanyahu postures himself inside Israel as um the the only person
capable of guaranteeing American support. I mean, to be able to say, "Hey, because of me, I got seven B2
bombers to fly over Iran and drop bunker busters on their facilities, that's a that's a big win for Netanyahu." So, he
wants to maintain the uh the image of the closeness between himself and uh and
Trump. Um, I al also think that Netanyahu, you know, we don't know what damage Iran
did, but the speculation, informed speculation, and I happen to agree with this, Iran did a lot of damage to Israel, and that Israel is scared. And
uh, so I think Netanyahu is going to be looking for strategies to manage this. How do you continue to maintain pressure
on Iran without having to cross the um, the line of departure again? Because, I
mean, it's an amazing statement that came out today from the IRGC. I don't know if you saw it. Uh he said that uh
none of the um missile cities that Iran had built where they store the the best
of the best missiles they have. He said none of those were activated. We used our old our old missiles, our old
stores. We didn't use any of the of the new good stuff. He said, "So, let me just stop for a second. Chris, can you
put up Larry's map showing all the places in Now look at that."
Yeah. I mean that. Okay. Now you're telling us that that damage was done using the old stuff, Scott. Using the
old stuff um and against a fully functional um ballistic missile defense
system. I mean, people can talk about all they want about the exhaustion of missiles, etc. Israel never exhausted
their missiles. Had this war go on, they would have. But my point in saying this is that it wasn't that the missile
defense system broke down through a lack of available interceptors. it was that the Iranian missiles overwhelmed the
system. And later on as they fired the more advanced versions, and remember the mo the most advanced versions they fired
um appeared to be old Shahab 3 liquidfueled
missiles with modern separating warheads. Uh I think the um IMAD in the
uh GER H2 with cluster warheads. What does that mean for those of us un
unschooled in the technical understanding of missiles? Well, if we're talking about a hypersonic
missile, you're you're you're you're looking at a missile that's going to not only take off at high speed. See, a ballistic missile does a ballistic
trajectory. A hypersonic missile is capable of high-speed flight. So, it's going to deviate off course. It's going
to maneuver. Um, generally speaking, you can do that with with liquid fuel, but
the best one to use it is with solid fuel. And the Iranians have solid fuel missiles that that do this. But a
ballistic missile that goes on a ballistic trajectory and then has a separating warhead. So the warhead separates, the booster falls off.
Actually, the booster keeps flying and absorbs interceptor hits. All those interceptor hits you see blowing up in the sky, those are separated boosters
being hit because the radars can't differentiate between the small target and the big target. Nobody talks about that. But um the the warhead comes in
and now the warhead can maneuver. It's got various sensors in it that are are looking for their targets. The warhead
itself as it maneuvers also has its own capability to maneuver and then hyper
accelerate down. So it has a a propulsion package on the back of it. But it a warhead can also separate and
then split into submunitions. If you remember the arric missile that Russia fired against Ukraine was a a missile
that came in separated the the booster came in opened up and it had six warheads each one of which had six
submunitions. So you saw six separate strikes with six submunitions hitting down each one. Iran has the same thing.
I think the Eihad or the IMOD missile is that kind. The Godder has same things, cluster munitions. They also deploy
decoys. So you'll see the the the warhead come in. What's interesting is it separates and slows down. So there's
a breaking mechanism that pops open, slows it down, it deploys decoys and and
then and the decoys go out. And you see all the interceptors go out for the decoys because the decoys are superheated etc. And they're moving on
the trajectory that was projected predicted. That warhead pops the fins, holds up, decoys go forward, absorb, and
then you see the war go. Bam. This is the old stuff. We're
talking these are warheads that are like six, 10 years old. The good stuff is
still in the missile uh the missile, the hypersonic missiles, the maneuvering um
the the the extraordinarily accurate systems. Iran hasn't used them. They may have used one or two. There's talk about
they they came in with a Fata just to prove a point. Fata being the hypers, but I think it was the Fatah one, not
the Fatah 2. So Iran hasn't even used its good stuff yet. Larry, um, did the
Iranians damage the Israeli defense industry, its domestic defense industry?
Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, they they that's why Israel was begging the United States to
put this to an end. Uh, they miscalculated. They really underestimated Iran's both
capability for pain as well as its ability to punch back. And you know I
for the life of me I I I don't understand the military planners because when they sit you sit down and look at
the size differential. So all all Iran has to do is knock out one international
airport and Israel shut down. They have no more commercial flight for civilians.
You'd have to go to a military airfield. uh Israel only has two ports that uh and
they are very much dependent upon these container ships which come and deliver
food and medicine and other supplies, energy. U so it it's easy for Iran to
knock those out. Whereas Israel, hey, they knocked out two or three Iranian airports. Okay, Iran still had 26 other
international airports for starters. Iran. You look at the amount of damage
just by comparison that Ukraine has sustained from Russian attacks going now
uh you know probably 42 months since the since the war started. And when you
realize that Iran is three times both the geographic size, physical size and
population size of Ukraine. So man,
Israel could you Yeah. Keep pouring it on guys. They can cause a lot of damage but Iran by virtue of its size can
absorb a lot of damage whereas Israel by virtue of its small size cannot. And
when you start basically Iran hit the their equivalent of the Pentagon, their
equivalent of the CIA, their equivalent of the FBI, their equivalent of the National Security Agency, as well as
their equivalent of our national laboratories. So yeah, Iran inflicted some serious damage on Israel. What is
it Netanyahu going to ask Trump for, Scott, that he doesn't already that we haven't already given them.
Well, you know, there's this whole rumor about B2s being given to Israel. I find that treasonous and joking. Um, it's the
most advanced piece of equipment the US military on on active duty. I know we have, you know, follow-on uh systems,
but uh highly classified. I mean, extraordinarily classified. Um, and to
turn this over to the Israelis who have a history of selling our technology and our intelligence to uh China and Russia.
Um, you know, I point people to the Lavi fighter program back in the 1980s F-16
technology um, you know, test bed. Um, we didn't, you know, we said this is F-16 technology. We don't want to share
it with anybody. Next thing you know, a lobby is in China at a research and development facility being reverse engineered by the Chinese because the
Israelis gave it to him in favor for, you know, favors from the Chinese. Jonathan Polard stole the crown jewels
of the US intelligence community. Basically, the the Bible that had all of the codes around the world, all the
frequencies that we were monitoring, what we were getting from them, what their encryption was, how we could break the encryption, all of this, which
systems collected it. uh he stole that, gave it to the Israelis who then turned around and sold it to the Russians in
favor of or the Soviets in favor of uh you know uh immigration uh benefits. So
Israel has betrayed us across the board. They spy on us. Obama White House was infiltrated with the Israeli listening
devices, the whole thing. Um so I don't buy into this B2 thing. I think that's just that popular Netanyah is going to
be asking for continued American support. Um but he's also going to be saying that I I believe he he wants to
avoid um conflict. Larry's 100% right. It was Netanyahu who was calling Trump
saying we got to bring this thing to an end. We can't stand we we we can't go another week. He was desperate to bring
a war to an end by weeks in. And that's why Trump did his little, you know, charade with the Iranians to set up the
conditions of a ceasefire. But um I I think Netanyahu right now is also, you
know, worried about his domestic um you know, he just was in court. Trump sent out his ridiculous tweets interfering
with the judicial process of uh of Israel, threatening sanctions um if they dare press forward with their charges of
corruption against Netanyahu. I think he's going to be looking for more political support. He's going to be um
also meeting with members of Congress, getting Congress to use their ability to pressure uh Israel. Um, Netanyahu is a
survivor and I think basically this this entire uh trip is going to be about the political survival of Benjamin Netanyahu. Larry, the last word.
Oh, I think he's going to uh look for Trump's help in getting uh you know
because they've they've now lost intelligence access to Iran. So, what they need to do is get IAEA back in
there. Um because when you run this kind of operation, you expose a lot of intelligence operatives and now to
rebuild back that network is going to take some time. Wow. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thanks for the double
duty for both of you. Much appreciated. Uh have a great uh patriotic Fourth of
July weekend. We'll see you both next week. All right. Thank you, Judge. And I've been with Scott so much today, I
think we're going to start buying furniture together. Let's not get carried away. Thank you.

[admin]

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Unpacking Netanyahu's next-steps. Why the DC visit w/ Trump?
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom
Streamed live on Jul 3, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Unpacking Netanyahu's next-steps. Why the DC visit w/ Trump?



Transcript

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Npalitano here
for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday,
January 3rd, excuse me, July 3rd.
Thursday, July 3rd, 2025. Professor John
Mirshimer joins us now. Professor
Mirshimer, as always, welcome here.
Thank you for accommodating my schedule
and thank you for interrupting your time
off to uh join us uh before we get to
Israel and Iran and Prime Minister
Netanyahu's trip uh to the US next week
and what you expect he'll ask for and
what you expect he'll get. The answer is
probably everything and everything, but
we'll get to that in a minute. I do want
to spend a few minutes on Ukraine. How
do you read, Professor Mirshimer,
President Trump's holdup on um artillery
shells and missiles to Ukraine? Is this
symbolic or substantive?
My sense is it's substantive. And the
fact is that given that we are providing
both the Israelis and the Ukrainians
with huge amounts of weaponry and that
we tend to privilege quality over
quantity which means we don't have
endless number numbers of different
kinds of equipment. Uh it's not
surprising that the Pentagon believes
that we're running down our own stocks
to a dangerous level. I've argued that
this is happening visav East Asia and
containing China for a long time. So,
I'm not surprised we're at this point.
Uh, and I think that that's what's
driving the train here. Not a uh
political or ideological
or moral determination
that it's time to wind down American uh
involvement in the war in Ukraine. Well,
in terms of a moral determination, this
is clearly an administration that's
incapable of making moral uh decisions.
I mean, that's just out the window.
Again, you always want to remember that
we're supporting the genocide in Gaza.
So, morality has nothing to do with
this. And Trump would sell the
Ukrainians down the river if he thought
that was in his interest. So, it has
nothing to do with morality. Uh, I think
there's no question that Trump is
interested in uh, sort of cutting off
the Ukrainians if that can bring this
war to an end. Uh, and this is one small
step in that direction. But as you know,
he's not been willing to take a giant
step. And the real test is coming. The
real test is what he will do uh, once
all of that material that's in the Biden
pipeline runs out. Then he'll have to
decide whether he's going to go to
Congress and get permission uh to
continue funding the Ukrainians or
supplying them with weaponry or whether
he's going to cut them off cold turkey.
I mean, that decision is coming. That's
the big one. I think you're I think
you're right. And he has been attacked
by some of his closest friends and
strongest allies amongst Republicans in
the House. I haven't heard anything from
Senator uh Graham. Not that we care what
he says, but he's sometimes uh
bellweather to how other senators uh
think uh about the decision to uh pull
back. Do you think that the EU or the
remaining NATO countries are in any
position to make up for uh the uh
American uh withdrawal, draw back, dial
back, whatever you want to call it? No,
not at all. Uh, I mean there's they're
having as much trouble as we are
spinning up uh our industrial base so
that we can produce the weapons that the
Ukrainians uh and the Israelis need. Uh
the fact is the United States has not
been very successful at spinning up its
industrial base. Uh and the the
Europeans have been less successful. So
they just don't have the weaponry to
give. The other thing you want to
remember is that a lot of these European
economies, this is especially true of
the British, French, and even the German
economy, uh, they're all in trouble. Uh,
and spending huge amounts of money to
continue funding this war in Ukraine,
uh, forever and ever because this has
become a forever war for the Europeans,
I don't think is politically feasible.
So they may be able they meaning the
Europeans may able may be able to
substitute for the United States if
Trump uh cuts off the spot but uh not
for long in my opinion. I guess we
really have no idea unless you have some
sources professor Mir Shimemer uh of
what President Trump and President Putin
spoke about today. I have no idea what
they talked about today. Uh, I think
President Putin is playing a very smart
game here. He's, you know, showing that
he's reasonable, that he's willing to
talk to Trump, uh, he's willing to talk
to Mcronone, uh, and he's interested in
peace and so forth and so on, while at
the same time continuing to wage the war
as vigorously as possible, uh, against
Ukraine. Uh, and I think from Trump's
point of view, he's basically flailing
around. It's just vintage Trump. You
want to remember that Trump has not
solved one foreign policy problem that
was on his plate when he moved into the
White House. Uh he couldn't even beat
the Houthis after he promised us he was
going to beat him. Uh he wasn't able to
defeat the Iranians, right? He can't
shut down the war in Gaza in any
meaningful way. Hasn't been able to shut
down the war in Ukraine. So, he's
talking to Putin in the hopes that maybe
they can work out some sort of deal. Uh,
but that's not going to happen because
Trump is not willing to make the
concessions that are necessary to bring
this war to an end. Have we ever
resolved the issue about totally
obliterated?
I think it's been uh clearly established
by people who operate uh with both feet
planted on the ground uh that we did not
totally obliterate Iran's nuclear
capability. and Raphael Gross uh the
head of the IAEA has made it clear that
it's just a matter of months before uh
uh before Ukra Iran is back to uh
enriching uranium. Uh and uh and by the
way, the Pentagon has said that it could
be as soon as a year from now that
they're enriching uranium uh again. So
the idea that this whole system has been
obliterated,
the the problem has been solved and uh
we can go about our business uh on other
fronts is not a serious argument. This
problem is still sitting out there. I'm
going to play a clip for you which
contains
uh in it the most fantastic statement
about uh where Ukraine was prior to the
president's bombing. This is Senator
John Kennedy.
Uh don't let his country bumpkin way of
speaking uh fool you. He's a very well
educated
uh man. But the the claims in this are
absurd. Um I invite your attention to
two parts of it. one, he he talks about
an a um
uh
um a a a conference with intelligence
people uh in which he and other senators
were briefed. He lists the briefer.
Listen for a name that is conspicuously
missing. And then there's a very short
question and a three-word answer at the
end. The last three words you'll hear in
this clip and I invite your attention to
that. Chris, cut number seven. Before
Israel and America did what we did, Iran
was within days
of having a nuclear weapon.
Now within days within days. That's in
this briefing.
With within days.
Uh sir, just to kind of circle back and
and put a finer uh point on this, the
days that they were to getting a bomb,
that seems to be different from what
Tulsi Gabbard had testified to in March.
Was there a new assessment? Was that the
Israeli assessment? Was that a new
American assessment? Was that
information new to you in this briefing?
It was new to me. Uh this was this was a
good briefing. It was one of the best
I've ever attended. I mean, Rubio, Heads
Seth, Ratcliffe, General Kaine, they
they didn't bring out a script and read
carefully from it. They just they just
looked us in the eye and talked to us.
The assessment that said that Iran was
within days of having a bomb. Is that
Israeli or American assessment? I don't
know.
Is that an Israeli or an American
assessment? I don't know. Did you ask
Senator? Apparently not. What? Have you
ever heard this nonsense before within
days? Have you ever heard of a briefing?
No notes, no chart, nothing written,
just talking. Have you ever heard of a
briefing where the chief United States
briefer under federal law called the
director of national intelligence, in
this case, Tulsi Gabbard wasn't there?
Well, we know it's not surprising that
Tulsi Gabbard wasn't there because they
don't trust her. uh and they don't want
her around to have to uh speak out about
where exactly the Iranian nuclear
program is because she would definitely
have to say that they are not a few days
away from having a bomb. It's a
ludicrous claim. Uh it's just you know
it's hard to understand where we are as
a c where we are as a country uh when
you have important figures from the
executive branch who are going before
Congress and making these ludicrous
claims. Everybody knows that it will
take at least a year for the Iranians to
build a bomb. Right? The idea that
they're days away is just simply crazy.
Right? And then with regard to the end
of uh the clip and the senator's comment
that he didn't know whether it was
Israeli or American intelligence. In a
way, I don't blame him because there's
no difference. Uh it's not like the
United States is saying one thing and
Israel is saying another. Certainly when
you're dealing with people at the top,
uh it's quite clear that uh Mossad, the
leadership of Mossad and the leadership
of the CIA sing from the same page. Uh
so obviously the senator who you know
has bought in uh to what is the
conventional wisdom on all these
subjects and believes all these people
uh he just repeated what they had to say
and he had no interest in trying to
figure out whether it was something the
Americans believed uh and uh or or the
Israelis believed. Again, it just
doesn't matter. Is the director of
central intelligence a MSAD asset?
Oh, he is he's a he's not a MSAD asset
in the sense that uh you know he's a
secret uh uh uh MSAD asset. He he's a
MSAD asset in the sense that he does
Israel's betting. He he's you know the
Israelis basically own him. It's very
clear Max Blumenthal has laid this all
out for you on the show. Yes. Max calls
him uh the MSAD stenographer. he takes
down everything that they uh that they
tell him. Yeah, that's exactly right.
And it just again highlights that at the
higher levels there's really no
meaningful difference between uh Israeli
views and American views on all these
things. By the way, I wouldn't be
surprised if one of the reasons that
Trump attacked on June 22nd
uh was because he bought into this whole
argument that the uh Iranians were a few
days away from having a bomb and it was
imperative to destroy this capability
before they got the bomb. Maybe that's
the attack. would have gotten that
argument from the MSAD agents, according
to Max Blumenthal, who visited him in
the Oval Office.
That may be true, but even so, he didn't
have to talk to the MSAD agents. All he
had to do was talk to John Ratcliffe,
who, as you said, is effectively a MSAD
agent, right? And it's not only
Radcliffe, it's people like Rubio who
have bought into this. You want to
remember that Marco Rubio wants to be
president someday. And he knows that if
you want to be president someday, what
you have to do is you have to cow out to
Israel. Well, but Marco Rubio was born
of parents who are not American
citizens. And under Trump's
interpretation of the 14th Amendment,
he's not an American citizen. I'm being
a little snarky. Even though the
statement I've made, the statements I've
made about this uh are true. Um, how
badly was the Israeli defense industry
in Israel damaged by the retaliation
from the Iranian missiles? Do we know?
No, we don't have any details. There's
no question that a number of sites were
hit. Uh, air bases were hit, research
institutions were hit. Uh, they ran out
of defensive or they were running out of
defensive missiles as we know. Uh so
damage was done and of course damage was
done um to all sorts of buildings uh
both uh military buildings and civilian
buildings inside of Tel Aviv. Uh and
then in Hifa they hit the port. They uh
did enormous damage to the uh one of the
two oil refineries that the Israelis uh
have. So they did the the Iranians did
an enormous amount of damage uh inside
of Israel, but there's no evidence that
they eliminated uh any uh meaningful
slice of Israel's defensive
capabilities.
um Harets, which you and I read,
uh reports that um contrary to Israeli
sensors, it leaked out that 33,000
applications have been made for building
reconstruction
uh from and after the Iranian attack.
Now, that wouldn't be a total, I'll use
Trump's phrase, obliteration of
buildings, but it would be a material uh
and substantial uh damage to the point
where they're looking to the government,
the government for funds uh with which
uh to reconstruct. Why Why would the
Israelis drop a 500B bomb on an internet
cafe
in Gaza? because they are in the process
of committing a genocide. And when a
country is committing a genocide, that's
exactly what you would expect. This is
not surprising. I mean, you read the
news every day. You know what they're
doing. I mean, just think about the
slaughter that's taking place at these
various uh feeding sites that they've
created, right? They're starving the
Palestinians and forcing them to go to
these uh collection points where they
get food and then when they get there uh
they murder them. Uh and uh given that
that's been happening day after day and
somewhere between 50 and 100
Palestinians have been uh are being
killed every day, I find it hardly
surprising that they would drop a bomb
on a cafe. It's all part of the
genocide. Are you surprised that Israeli
settlers in the West Bank are engaged in
violence against the IDF? Israeli
settlers fighting violently with guns
against the Israeli military? No, not at
all. Because I think the Israeli
military likes to put some limits on
what the settlers can do. uh their
ultimate goals are the same, the
settlers and the IDF. But uh the IDF has
certain rules that they believe apply to
the settlers, but the settlers don't
believe any rules apply to them and they
can do whatever they want. And a lot of
them are crazy enough that they're
willing to attack the IDF. So you have
this ongoing problem in the West Bank
where the settlers and the IDF are
actually clashing uh and the Israeli
Defense Ministry is taking measures to
try to put this uh problem to bed.
Why is uh Benjamin Netanyahu coming to
Washington next week? We already give
him everything he wants.
Well, I would imagine that he wants to
strategize with Trump. Uh Trump thought
that this whole operation was a
oneanddone. He thought that he would go
in there or we would go in there. Uh we
would obliterate Iran's nuclear
capability and that would be the end of
the story. But what Trump doesn't
understand is he just bought into a
forever war. This war is going to go on
and on and on. I can lay out the details
as to how it's going to happen if you
want, but uh the idea that this is one
and done is not serious. So, what
Netanyahu wants to do is he wants to
brief Trump on how this is likely to
play out and he wants to begin to work
on getting him to make sure uh that the
United States is in the fight with
Israel. How do you think the war will
progress? Israel will break the
ceasefire as it always does whenever it
enters into a ceasefire.
Well, again, you want to understand what
Israel's goals are here. Israel's goal
is to wreck Iran. It's to turn Iran into
another Syria and at the same time to
eliminate Iran's ability uh to enrich
uranium. We focus a lot of attention on
the fact that Iran can enrich uranium
and that the Israelis and the Americans
want to prevent that. Okay, but that's
the first part of the story. The second
part of the story is that the Israelis
are bent uh on destroying Ukraine. They
just don't want regime change. Well, you
you said Ukraine. You meant Iran. Yes.
I'm sorry. Okay. Uh they they want to
wreck they want to wreck Iran and uh
it's going to take them a while to do
that. It took them a while to wreck
Syria. Of course, they did it with our
help and with Turkeykey's help. and
their belief is that they can wreck uh
they can wreck Iran, but they can only
do it with our help. You want to
remember that one thing that's really
happened here is that the Israelis have
become extremely dependent on the United
States to carry out these various
military operations. Uh the Israelis
used to make a lot of the fact that they
had created the ability to operate
independently
against their principal adversaries.
They didn't need another country to
fight their wars for them. Yes, they
would buy weaponry from countries in
Europe or from the United States. They
would take aid from those countries, but
when it was time to fight, the Israelis
would do the fighting themselves. That's
no longer the case. And it's in large
part because the United States and
Israel are joined at the hip. And
because we're joined at the hip, they
understand, right, that any time they go
to war against a country like Iran or in
uh or when they execute a a genocide in
Gaza, they need the United States. They
can't do it alone. And therefore, it
makes eminently good sense for Netanyahu
to come to Washington
uh to talk uh sweetly to uh Donald Trump
to assuage his ego and tell him how much
Israel needs him, how much Israel
appreciates him and also just to give
him a sense of what's coming. Because
you want to understand, judge, what's
happened here is that they've not
obliterated forever Iran's nuclear
capability. And Iran is committed to
once again enriching uranium. Right?
That means that we won't know what
exactly they're doing because the IAEA,
which has been our eyes and ears up to
now, is no longer going to be able to
monitor what the Iranians are doing. So
the Israelis are going to tell all sorts
of stories how the Iranians are secretly
enriching uranium for purposes of
building a bomb. And we won't have
Raphael Gross or anyone like that there
to say that they're not doing that. And
the Israelis won't have Raphael Grace to
share secrets to get secrets from. Yes,
I I fully understand that. But I'm also
just telling you that you want to
understand that from Israel's point of
view, this is the ideal situation
because they can the Israelis can
portray the Iranians as moving rapidly
down the road to get nuclear weapons and
there will be no IAEA to inspect and say
that's not the case. And once that
rhetoric is on the table and it begins
to spread in the United States as it did
uh just before uh the bombing on June
22nd, what will happen is that we will
feel compelled to come to the aid of our
uh close ally Israel. And of course, if
we bomb again, that's not going to solve
the problem. Uh and all of this is a way
of saying we're in another forever war.
What has the United States of America as
a country gained from its alliance with
Israel?
Nothing. As I've said to you before,
Israel is a giant albatross around our
neck, both strategically and morally. Uh
I mean, as a result of what's going on
in Gaza, we're complicit in a genocide.
And from a strategic point of view,
we're now in another forever war. uh
this one involving Iran. Furthermore,
it's more likely than ever that Iran is
going to get nuclear weapons, and if
that happens, it's going to do enormous
damage to the NPT. Furthermore,
supporting Israel the way we support it
has done great damage to uh um the the
international legal system that we set
up. uh just look at what we're doing
with the IC, the ICJ,
uh and so forth and so on. Uh so this is
just terrible news for us. And as I like
to emphasize, I know you're not happy to
hear this. If you're interested in
containing China, uh this is disastrous.
You're running down all sorts of
military stock piles in this war uh in
the Middle East and of course in the
Ukraine war as well. You're weakening
yourself in East Asia, making it more
difficult to contain China. So th this
is not good for us. What will China and
Russia do, if anything, if the United
States invades, whether by air, sea, or
land, Iran?
Uh, I don't think we're going to invade
by land. I don't think that that's in
the cards. I think that the Iranians,
the Russians, and the Chinese all
understand uh that it's extremely
likely, I'm choosing my words carefully
here, that both the Israelis and the
Americans will pay a return visit to
Iran. And I think the Russians and the
Chinese understand that they have a
vested interest in helping Iran butress
its defenses and improve its inventory
of ballistic missiles. I don't think the
Russians and the Chinese want Iran to
acquire nuclear weapons, but I do think
that they would like to see Iran possess
uh a highly potent ballistic missile
force and also have air defenses that
could shoot down uh Israeli aircraft and
Israeli missiles as they attack Iran.
Wow.
I don't know that Trump's going to have
an easy time selling to the American
people, and maybe he doesn't care since
he can't run for election again, uh the
concept of a of a major incursion, I'll
use that word since it's not going to be
a land invasion, uh into uh Iran. I
mean, what did he gain by the hundred
million dollars he spent uh bombing? He
gained nothing with the half billion he
spent bombing the Hoodies. What did he
gain with the hundred million uh he
spent bombing uh the Iranian mountain
sides on June 22nd? Well, I think with
regard to the American people, as long
as Americans don't die, uh there's
almost no limit to what he can do. Uh I
mean, there's just no real resistance in
this country. Uh the Democratic Party
puts up hardly any resistance. There's
hardly any resistance inside the
Republican party. and voices like ours
are few in number. Uh I mean there are a
lot of people who listen to us but it
doesn't have that much effect up at the
top. So Trump is pretty much free to do
whatever he wants for the foreseeable
future. Uh and he is acting that way. I
mean he shows no sense of limits, no
sense that uh uh he could get himself
into trouble. And what we're saying here
is that you know the potential for
trouble is real. But he doesn't buy that
argument. I wonder if he
understands the perception that
Netanyahu has him wrapped around his
finger.
Well, I think that he understands, this
is me putting myself in his head. I
think he understands that danger, but he
believes that he can tell a story
publicly
uh that makes it clear that he's really
in charge and that he has pulled
Netanyah Netanyahu's chestnuts out of
the fire. And you want to remember
Netanyahu is a very crafty man. This is
a a a first order uh politician and he
he fully understands what he's dealing
with when it comes to Donald Trump. So
what he'll do is he'll come to
Washington and he'll kiss up to Trump.
He'll tell Trump that he's wonderful and
uh he really needs Trump. Uh and Trump
will then be able to say that he is
helping Israel. He is saving Israel.
Israel should be thankful for him and
Netanyahu will just nod in agreement. So
in a very important way that allows
Trump to convince himself that Netanyahu
is not in the driver's seat, that he
Donald Trump is in the driver's seat.
Professor Mayor Shimemer, thank you very
much. Uh it feels like it's a Friday
afternoon, but it's Thursday because we
all have the three-day holiday weekend
uh coming up, so-called Independence
Day. We are independent of London, but
are we independent of Washington? Not at
all. Nevertheless, without getting
political, thank you very much for your
time. Have a great holiday weekend. We
look forward to seeing you next week. I
look forward to it, too. And happy 4th
of July to you as well, Judge. Thank
you. Thank you, professor. Coming up at
4:00 today, 4 this afternoon, the
intelligence community roundt with Larry
Johnson and Scott Ritter filling in for
Ray McGovern who's lecturing in Germany
trying to jin up the peace movement
there. Justin Paul for judging freedom.
[Music]
[Music]

[admin]

Judge Luttig STICKS THE DAGGER in SCOTUS’s Sellout of the Constitution
by Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz
Legal AF: The Court of History
Jul 3, 2025

The Court of History's Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz are joined by Conservative former judge, John Michael Luttig, who declares his independence from Trump.



Transcript

[Sean Wilentz] Welcome to the Court of History. I'm Sean Wilentz with my colleague, writer and historian Sydney Blumenthal.
Today we're going to be talking about, well, the core of everything really. We're going to be talking about the Constitution of the United States and
the threat that it is currently under. You know, I read a piece just today
by my colleague out at Stanford, Jack Rakove, talking about how what we've considered up to this point to be a
constitutional crisis is really a matter of a constitutional failure. Since Trump was inaugurated, we've seen a failure, a collapse of constitutional
norms, of constitutional institutions, really, things instituted by the constitution which stood between
tyranny and are now in a state of failure. It's not a crisis anymore. Things have failed.
It's been going on for a while.

You know, Sid, it's July 1, and we're building up to July 4th. It'll be our July 4th episode
in effect. But July 1st marks the first anniversary of a truly dark day in
American history. Remember what that is, Sid?

[Sidney Blumenthal] Why don't you remind me?

[Sean Wilentz] July 1st,
2025, or 24 rather, was the date that the
Supreme Court released its decision in Trump v. U,S basically giving the president total
immunity for all acts considered to be official acts. I wrote about it at the time as the DreadScott decision of our
time, that it opened up, as the DreadScott decision had done, what it did. Well, why don't we talk about that
actually Sid? I mean, DreadScott opened up the possibility, or tried to legalize, in effect, the Republican
party, and tried to establish slavery as the wave of the future, right?

Well, I
think that decision, which is now compounded by the recent decision on
nationwide injunctions by federal courts below the Supreme Court, really amount to a Magna Carta for a
kingship in the United States. So, not only is Dread Scott involved here as a
decision, and the DreadScott decision is very interesting in other
ways as well, in that it denied any recognition of rights to blacks. Which was a way of destroying the nascent Republican party that became the
party of Lincoln. But the way in
which Dread Scott was rescinded was through the 14th amendment
establishing birthright citizenship. And that was the direct response to
Dread Scott. And now we have Contra Declaration of Independence,
a complimentary decision establishing an unchecked, and
unaccountable, executive.

Well, to talk about this and many other issues, we are extremely -- extremely -- fortunate, indeed honored, to have
on hand, for the Court of History, J. Michael Luttig. Judge Luttig served on US court of appeals for the fourth circuit for 15 years from 1991 to 2006.
Before that, he'd been appointed to the federal bench by President George HW Bush. He
had served as assistant attorney general at the US Department of Justice, and counselor to the attorney general of the
United States. He was assistant counsel to the president of the White House from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald
Reagan. And from 1982 to 1983, he was law clerk to then judge Antonin Scalia
of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Luttig,
welcome to the Court of History.

[Judge Luttig] Thank you, Sean, and thank you, Sydney. It's really my honor to be on
with you today. And in fact, it's an especial honor to be on with you today, beginning the week of Independence Day 2025, and the signal importance of that day in
American history coming up at the end of the week. Thank you for having me.

[Sean Wilentz] Well,
we're absolutely delighted. And getting back to my favorite president and Sid's favorite president, Abraham
Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln very famously once remarked that the Constitution of the United States was like a frame
around the golden apple which was the Declaration of Independence, that the Constitution has imbued
within it the basic values proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence. And yet, as you've been
writing, and we're going to be writing further, Judge, those basic values are under attack.

[Judge Luttig] They're not just under attack, Sean.
They are under vicious attack by the president of the United States of
America. To say that this is the first time in American history would be
understatement. The founding fathers could have never
contemplated this man, and this moment, in American
history. But we know from what they wrote at the time, in anticipation of the
worst possible moment, that they
feared that we would surrender our own democracy and rule of
law to a demagogue president of the United States. And indeed that's what we
have done.

I was asked to drop into a Supreme Court symposium down the hill
the other day, and I spoke for five or 10 minutes, and the moderator asked me
this question. She said, "Judge, are we in danger of losing
our republic?" And I paused for a moment, because the
question came to me out of left field, so to speak.
And I said, "We lost our republic
in January of 2025 when this new president returned to the
White House and began his first 100 days in office." I said the only question now
for America is whether we can recapture
that republic that we have already lost.

Do you have any thoughts and reflect? Yeah. on the Declaration of Independence
um which is very specific in its um in its articles about the violations of um
uh uh human rights and um and legal rights um in relationship to what we're
going through now. What are your reflections on that document as we
approach the 4th of July and what we're now experiencing? Well, thank you for
that that question, Sydney. Um, I really began thinking about uh the Declaration
of Independence first with the new president came into office
in January because uh as you know for the past two
years uh in in one way or another I have
been trying to tell the American people that
this president uh acted like a king
and if reelected or if elected again to the office, he would govern as a king.
Now, I don't fault anyone for not thinking that a possibility. Uh but I
was just like the two of you were. I was listening to every word the man spoke
and every action he took. And I I knew what I spoke.
So on January 20th, 2025, uh on his first day in office,
uh he began to carry through with his
promise to the American people. and it almost verbatim
to be a king. And uh uh and with every single
initiative since that first day in office uh he has
acted like a king in the exact same style and manner as
King George III did. And of course, it was King George III's
conduct as a uh tyrant, a monarchical tyrant
that led the American colonists to declare their independence from the the
British crown to fight the Revolutionary War for it its independence
and having won that war to establish lish
in the United States of America and for the United States of America a democracy
and a democracy under the rule of law. And Donald Trump has
targeted literally every single one of those
foundational values, principles, and even the institutions
that that we created over the past 250 years following our revolutionary war
with with Great Britain. So, most recently, I've I've tried my hand
at at a piece for this July 4th, 2025
in which I would uh uh I would I would articulate
for history, if history's interested,
um 27 self-evident truths
in America today. Uh, and then I have lined up each of the
27 grievances against the king
that are contained in the Declaration of Independence. uh married each up with the relevant
truth of the 27 truths that I have uh I
have have drafted. People sometimes just people sometimes forget that the declaration of independence quite apart
from its wonderful beginning was a list of grievances 27 grievances that the the Congress had against the the British
crown. Um that's the you know the real substance of it in some ways that all those grievances which never get
remembered. But you say judge that we have our own grievances that are tallied up with ones from 1776.
That that's exactly right Sean. in in fact uh the
the parallels uh between the grievances against the
crown in 1776 and the grievances that Americans have
against this president of the United States. The parallels are astonishing.
Sean, well, give us some give us some examples. Well,
you know, I had referenced in the the u the Atlantic piece, of course, uh the uh
signature initiatives. The the two two two leading signature initiatives of this president, of course, are uh
immigration and deportation um and uh tariffs. It's all in the uh
declaration, isn't it? Yes, Sydney. Yes. And and no one should be under any
illusions. I had no earthly idea myself until I laid eyes on the Declaration of
Independence again for the first time in I don't know how many years. And then I
started going through the individual uh 27 grievances and and Sydney, I was I I
I was astonished. I was astonished at
how well they uh they they line up exactly
with the conduct of this incumbent president of the United States which is
you know for so the the way the treatise would be written uh you know is that
uh Americans today indeed have the same
almost identical grievances against Donald Trump that the American colonist
had against King George III. You know, the first complaint or article in the
Declaration after the appeal to the decent opinion of mankind is that he has
refused his ascent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good. What's your view? Well, first off,
those those words are are not just profound. They're melodious.
They they every single word captures
as they were intended to do. America
and what we would come to stand for and represent uh before the world. So, we'll
we'll take as many examples as you want. I just want to warn you that that in in
probably the style of the two of you, I am riveted and consumed by each one of the
27. And but that one, of course, was especially important to me because, you
know, my wheelhouse, if you will, is is the rule of law. And several of the uh 27
grievances were directed at the the king's king's abdication
of the rule of law against the colonists
only. and uh and and and the words were just
they're they're beautiful, powerful words that would give rise to a
revolution and did give rise to a a revolution.
Uh and all of the grievances can be summed up in in in this way. And let me
just think for a moment, but the the the grievances were uh against the king for
the suspension of law
uh and the imposition of arbitrary law.
arbitrary law that of course ended up in the denial of the
um the rights, liberties, and freedoms uh of the colonist.
Uh and of course that's exactly where you
know I I came into the picture thinking about it as you know you know I I have
uh charged the the current president with the corruption of American
democracy and the rule of law.
And again, not to beat a dead horse, but it can't be overemphasized,
every single thing this president has done, certainly over the past five
years, so as to include January 6th and the intervening four years, has represented
the corruption of of America's democracy and rule of law in
actually a worse away than than the king did 200 almost 250
years ago. I say it's worse. It's far worse for this reason.
We are the United States of America today. And the president of the United States
is the last person on earth who should corrupt America's democracy
and rule of law, but intentionally,
deliberately try to corrupt America's democracy and
rule of law. That's why we are today not just in a constitutional crisis.
America itself is in a crisis just of the kind that that Sean
suggested at the beginning of the program. An existential crisis. Existential crisis. But you know in
1776, as we historians know, it was directed against the crown to be sure as
a tyrant. But the tyrant had help. The tyrant didn't act alone. The tyrant had
his ministers. And there are ministers around this president, I think, who are doing as much as they can quite
deliberately. In fact, in ways probably more deliberate than the president whose understanding of American law probably
is fairly minimal. But there are those around him who are very much aware as well as institutions, and I dare say we
agree about this too, where the Supreme Court of the United States has not been particularly helpful in trying to rein
in this tyranny. But there are lots of others we could point to. No. Yes. Um,
you know, and then as you as you were talking, you know, the the the two individuals
around the president that came to mind, of course, were Steven Miller and uh and
the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi. Uh, every statement,
well, first off, Stephen Miller is the spokesperson for the law in this
administration. the the the attorney general is largely a puppet.
uh Steven Miller and I don't know anything about him but he's an intelligent person and when he speaks
about the law in in the grandest most profound ways that he has
um as an example suspension of the rid of habius corpus
uh and and and the grandest concepts in constitutional law he knows what he's
talking about. Mhm. But here's my point. He is intentionally
misstating the law and deceiving the American people as to the law. The
attorney general, of course, is just in a in a a class of of her own. Uh but she
is she's been really the the point person in uh savaging
the federal judiciary and savaging is is too light a word. uh you know this is
the attorney general of the United States who goes out every day you know and calls the federal judges as a group
and then individual judges as as the need arises you know cooks rogues who
are deliberately uh interpreting the constitutional laws of the United States in their own
partisan way with the sole objective ive of defeating
this president's agenda. I'll leave it to you guys, but I guarantee you no words such as those
have ever passed the lips of any attorney general of the United States
ever. And God help us if we ever have another attorney general who will speak
that way about the federal judiciary.
You know, Steven Miller has been posting pictures of judges attacks on judges on
um on the internet. Um and they're real consequences. Uh even Chief Justice
Roberts has talked about the threats to judges and I wonder what your thoughts
are about um uh this deliberately created hostility and animus toward the
judiciary and I must say it's in the declaration as well. Yes. that the king
has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his ascent to laws
for establishing judicial judiciary powers and he has made judges dependent
on his will alone and that seems to me to be his objective exactly
no question but in this instance the means by which
this president has done it are far more aggravated
than King George. Beginning with the fact that for 250
years we have had an independent judiciary
by design and intent of the of the Declaration and the Constitution of the
United States. And you have yet today
the president of the United States attempting every single day to
delegitimize the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, in the eyes
of the American people. And unfortunately, regrettably,
he is succeeding in that thus far. So, most recently, I think the Washington
Post asked me for a comment last last week on something. It might have been the adjun injunction case. I can't
remember. Um but but any event uh I I I ended my quote and the Washington Post
ended its article with my quote that this will continue
all of this meaning the president and the attorney general's savaging of the
federal judiciary until or unless the Supreme Court
at least tries eyes to put a stop to it. And I those were
deliberate words, Sean and Sydney, for this reason.
The the Supreme Court has accommodated this president at every turn thus far.
It was only when the the the president was calling for the impeachment of
federal judges and Elon Musk calling for the impeachment of all federal judges who rule against Donald Trump's agenda
that uh uh and and the violence that those calls for uh cat calls, if you
will, for violence against federal judges actually materialized.
that the Chief Justice, who was a a long time and dear friend of mine,
finally came forward to say something. Now,
as far as I'm concerned, he would have been better off saying
nothing than what he did. You'll recall what he said was uh nothing more than
impeachment is not the the answer to judges that
rule against a party and it never has been for 250 years. Does he really think
that Donald Trump cares one wit about that? Of course not. And it didn't slow
him down one second. Fast forward to last week's decision on
on the nationwide injunction case and and the and well, I'll put it this way.
I I'll reverse the order. the two days after, you know, the chief was speaking to a judicial conference
somewhere and uh and uh and and and he said something like uh we have to tamp
down the the rhetoric against the federal courts,
all parties, all of us. Very offensive to me personally and I
hope you too. But then the reversed order the day before, the day after or
the day of of the decision, the attorney general, you know, was standing there talking
about the decision with the president of United States s standing by her side,
trashing trashing the federal judiciary,
calling them every name in the book, rogue judges. judges who don't follow
the law and are only on their artisan agendas to defeat this president. All of
this, she says, then she calls out the
individual judges, the individual district courts, and the
individual courts of appeals, guys. Yeah. that says these courts by name
are nothing but politicians in black robes.
My point for your dis for our discussion today is the chief justice of the United
States knew damn well that that's exactly what the president of the United
States would say and what his attorney general would say in response to the
court's ruling. And the chief justice has a higher responsibility than to
respond to that by saying all of us need to tamp down our rhetoric. Yeah. All the
Supreme Court is the it is no longer possible for the Supreme Court to stop
this president. Yes. and and what you say, I mean, she's literally putting targets on their backs and this is a
regime of violence among other things, but just to continue with the declaration for a second, um, judge, you
know, you brought up the name Elon Musk a little while ago, and I'm I really am struck by how much the events today
parallel those in 1776. One of the grievances in 1776 against the king was
that he has erected a multitude of new officers and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat
out their substance. That sounds very much like Elon Musk, doesn't it?
I love you, professor. That was um you know I I studied the
declaration for you know 25 hours before I began parsing every
word and aligning it each grievance up with my 27 self-evident truths.
I found this one late and I literally was sitting where I'm sitting here now
and I laughed out loud and just so you you know you historians
rightly think you're smarter than all of us. No, no, we don't. The word was not
offices, it was departments.
Departments. And when I saw that, Sean, I said, "This goes with Doge."
Yeah. And that's where it is in my written piece. I love this. I love it.
Oh, it's perfect. And eats out the possibilities. I mean, the whole the wording is so perfect. Go ahead.
Yeah. Um, you are a friend of the Chief Justice.
Is he unaware of what is going on around him and um
and that he and the others are enabling this?
The John my friend
is one of the smartest people I've ever met in my life.
There is nothing that John Roberts is not aware of.
And at the top of that list, Sydney is self-awareness.
Mhm. He knows everything that's going on.
And that's why I've been so disappointed in him. And I understand
the the the issues, the two issues that that plague him. One is
the internal workings of the court itself, and I'll say no more, but you
know what I'm talking about. Sure. and then his um
unforgivable reticence
to speak out directly against the president of the United States of
America when he he knows and the rest of the world knows that this is the
president of the United States of America. So, you know, it it was it was
It was unforgivable in my view for the chief to continue
to make these broad statements, meaningless statements,
and attribute the the misconduct to all of us. All of us.
Sydney, I'm looking at you. Obviously, the Chief Justice has said, "You, the
Democrats, are every bit as responsible for this as
the Republicans." That's offensive. Yeah. Well, it's classic
um abdication of uh intellectual responsibility and hiding behind the
cliche of on the one hand and on the other hand as though you're actually
evenhanded whereas in fact you're stating a falsehood.
Exactly. Another question though about the chief justice because I once heard him say that that no chief justice of
the United States is ever going to match the example of John Marshall. That's as high as it gets. No one can even hope to
reach that level but that every chief justice is also worried about reaching the depths of Roger Bony.
Do you think you you know you know him is he aware of how far his reputation
let alone that of his court is descending under the current events?
Yes, for the reasons that that I gave. So he gets it. He knows everything,
Sean, that there is to know about the Supreme Court, the perceptions of
the Supreme Court, the institution of the Supreme Court under the Constitution
of the United States, and the politics surrounding the Supreme Court. There is
no one smarter than John Roberts as to all of that. So, in answer to your
question, he knows perfectly well.
Well, um, does he care about a historical judgment or only live in the present?
That's the conflict that that that Sean's, you know, suggesting.
And that's that's that's the question that that we that we we will never know.
That's not to say that we cannot make imminently rational
decisions about what he has done.
And that's where I say I don't know what he's thinking or what he intends,
what he wishes, the moment or history.
But I believe I can say and I know the two of you know that you can say he has
made the decision between the moment and history already
and it cannot be he cannot recover that decision if you will.
I wonder if inclusion Well, you want to say something Sean? I'm sorry. Well, I just want one more
question about the violence of it though because this is this is getting beyond a question of history and present. This is a question of responsibility to the
federal judiciary of which the chief justice is of course the head. By calling out by name various federal
judges. The the attorney general is doing more than just naming them. She's putting I believe a target on their
back. That the numbers of death threats that have come before federal judges over the last eight years have
skyrocketed. that there's even talk, I mean, I may have gotten this from you, judge, that that that the the federal
judges are no longer secure in their idea that the US marshals can actually protect them. Now, this strikes me as
something that goes beyond this is just taking care of your people, you know, keeping them away from the possibility
of being murdered, and we know that people are being murdered out there because in in Minnesota, we just saw what happened. There's no reason to
believe that can't become more general, especially if you're naming specific justice judges.
Does he have no sense of of what is at stake here with his own people?
Well, well, again, but so framed it's not even possible
that he could not understand the gravity of it. So, I I'll take you back for for
one vignette. I was in New York a few weeks ago uh on another ma matter unrelated to the law and uh Nicole
Wallace called and said, "Judge, would you ever agree just to walk across the
street and and and come on to my show this afternoon?" Um and I said, "Well,
gosh, Nicole, I'm in a board meeting." I said, "What? I'd do anything for you. What what do you what do you want?" And
she said, "Uh, I'm having Judge Salace on." And uh I said uh uh I I will be there.
And she said please. She said uh Judge Salace is going to tell her story.
And and it for for your audience, Judge Salace is the sitting federal judge
whose um whose son was killed at her front door, right? whose husband was
shot in an attempted murder uh because of a case she she had had and this was
maybe five years ago, something like that. Uh but Nicole, you know, said,
"Look, judge, I don't I don't want Judge Salace have to to have to answer any questions or
say anything." She said, "Please come so I can ask you
questions." And I said, "I'd be honored to." So, uh, the, uh, one of the the the
the questions was the marshall's question, by the way. But, but then when she turned to the court, Nicole, you
know, said, "Judge, would it would it be helpful for Chief Justice John Roberts to be
sitting here with us today?" And I said, "Nicole, it would not just
be helpful. It's obligatory. It's an profound obligation.
It's his highest obligation as Chief Justice of the United States
to speak for the safety of the federal judges in this country.
And I said, "His problem is that that would require condemning
the president of the United States." And I said, "In my view, so be it."
But right now, today, the Chief Justice of the United States is sitting on
that fact. And I can't even imagine that the
federal judges aren't sitting there wondering what on earth
what on earth is going on when the Supreme Court of the United States
refuses to prevent violence and murders of the federal
judges in this country. I couldn't look myself in the mirror.
Yeah. And you mean threats to them. Absolutely. Yes. And um and very real
threats. I mean, they're not just idol. Yeah. the the violent rhetoric is not
idle because we know that um there are individuals out there who hear them
almost as orders and um we may say they're unhinged or
that they're lone gunmen or so on but those who speak in this way are very
conscious of the deliberate effect and we have seen numerous incidents
including the one you mentioned about judge of solace but also many others and lately in Minnesota. So this is not
these are not idle threats. No, they are not
and they are coming from the Oval Office and the the
sacred department of justice or the once sacred department of justice.
Well, um, we're coming to July 4th. I'd like to find some way to give us some
sort of sense of elevation. It's a it's a terrible, terrible time. We all are agreed about that. But but judge, I want
to give you the last word. Um, looking at the 4th of July, how would you tell our our viewers, our listeners, you
know, to to to take that day and to make the most of it against this terrible regime? I mean, what what do you think
we should do? What should we be thinking? Yes, I I I have an answer.
Uh, but I didn't come up with the answer myself, Sean. Um, I had a couple of our
dearest friends were here uh last week. Um, and we were talking over all this
and they said every July 4th in in their family's history
together, they recite their Declaration of Independence. every single word of it.
I can think of nothing better on this July 4th than to do that in every
household and every family across America and think
about what those words meant then to our fellow Americans almost 250 years ago.
and what those words prophetically mean to we the people
today on the eve of the 250th anniversary
of this great nation. I I I I can't add nothing to that. Um
for Judge Leig, for Sydney Blumenthal, happy 4th of July everyone. Read the declaration. This is the Court of
History and we'll see you next time. Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal
AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument. Come
over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I
do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal are there as well. We got some new
reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal AF on Substack. Come
over now to free subscribe. [Music]

***********************

It’s Not Just a Constitutional Crisis in the Trump Era. It’s Constitutional Failure. The problem isn’t just the crisis of the administration defying the courts. It’s the failure of the legislative and judicial branches to check the president.
by Jack Rakove
June 27, 2025
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/06/2 ... l-failure/


Checks and Imbalances: While president Donald Trump defies constitutional norms through executive orders and agency purges, Congress remains conspicuously silent and the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to hold him accountable. Here, Trump departs after speaking at an event to promote his domestic policy and budget agenda in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 26, 2025, in Washington. Credit: Associated Press

The idea that the United States awaits some dread constitutional crisis has become commonplace. For lawyers, such a crisis would likely involve Donald Trump’s administration defying the Supreme Court on some critical ruling. But other crises are readily imaginable. Might President Trump invoke the Militia Act to manipulate the 2026 congressional elections, or order the Marines to take sites in Greenland without congressional approval, which seems ever more plausible after the June 22 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities?

Such scenarios are not unfounded, but they do not diagnose our true malady. Our ongoing constitutional crisis began with the presidential election last November 5. Reelecting an individual culpable for January 6 who has twice made a mockery of the presidential oath of office is itself a constitutional crisis. Nothing in his past or current behavior suggests that Trump has ever felt fidelity to his constitutional duties.

Once a constitutional crisis becomes an endemic condition, the term no longer usefully describes our collapsing system. Instead, we live in an era of constitutional failure when the relevant institutions cannot fulfill their responsibilities.

Because constitutional failure is a term we have never needed to use, it merits a precise definition. First, it must identify the specific situations where the government institutions have manifestly not fulfilled their constitutional functions. Second, it should treat these omissions not as occasional lapses but systemic defects. Third, it must explain how the political and ethical norms of constitutional governance have evaporated.

To apply this framework to the second Trump administration is hardly difficult. The only problem is where to begin. Consider its authoritarian reliance on executive orders to vitiate legally established government activities, its attempt to intimidate institutions outside of government to do its bidding, and its insistence that servile loyalty to the president outweighs fidelity to constitutional norms. That some commentators describe this last practice as the Führerprinzip—the Nazi principle that the will of the leader transcends all legal norms—tells us everything.

Deciding whether the Constitution is failing requires asking if and why the other two branches of government have been remiss in checking a rogue executive.

Their most important failures involve the two clauses that would have disqualified Trump from reelection: the presidential impeachment clause and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But starting in a more obscure location is better: the two Emoluments Clauses restricting the material benefits a president can receive from other governments. In his first administration, three suits sought to force Trump to comply with these two clauses. One, brought by members of Congress, was plausibly dismissed on standing grounds, because a minority faction in Congress cannot litigate to make the body implement a power it already possesses. Two other cases, however, progressed in the lower courts, but once they were appealed, the Supreme Court slow-walked them until Trump left office, leaving the issue moot.

The Court thus casually squandered an opportunity to clarify the meaning of a provision that badly needs enforcement. All previous presidents had scrupulously adhered to the Emoluments Clauses, which embody the fundamental principle that presidents should neither seek nor hold office for private gain. The honor of holding the highest office in the land should displace every other ambition. But this president and his family have more material, even sordid aims to pursue. With Trump, the imperial presidency and the presidential emporium have converged. This White House is for sale, whether through gifts from wealthy entrepreneurs, the manipulation of tariffs, and, perhaps worst of all, the family’s active involvement in crypto meme speculations.

But the two Emoluments Clauses occupy only obscure niches in the Constitution. The same cannot be said of the powers being abused to eliminate federal agencies and departments and purge civil servants. These agencies and officials derive their authority from congressional enactments and appropriations. All are covered by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, adopted to constrain the unilateral efforts of President Richard Nixon to reduce federal spending on his own authority. All involve the signature constitutional obligation of the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not least because every statute requires either the assent of the chief executive or, in the case of a presidential veto, its reenactment by supermajorities in both houses of Congress.

The most fundamental purpose of constitutional government, as it evolved in 17th-century England and revolutionary America, was to make the executive power susceptible to legislative control. It did not matter whether the executive was monarchical, ministerial, or presidential. The key point established by the English Glorious Revolution of 1688 was that the Crown had to rule with parliamentary consent or supervision.

The executive could not arbitrarily suspend or dispense with enacted legislation. The royal suspension of law topped the list of grievances that the parliamentary proponents of the Glorious Revolution compiled in the Bill of Rights that accompanied the accession of William and Mary to the throne. As its first resolution stated, “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

A similar statement holds a prominent place in another famous Declaration. The second allegation leveled against George III on July 4, 1776, was that “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” In Anglo-American tradition, the executive suspension of duly enacted law is prohibited.

One would expect to hear Democratic members of Congress make this case repeatedly. Their silence on this point identifies one great political mystery of the day. Republican members cannot evade this accusation either. When audiences at constituent meetings repeatedly shout, “Do your jobs,” they have a better grasp of Congress’s responsibility than their feckless representatives.

A similar argument applies to the rogue agency implementing this strategy. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cannot be a department in the conventional sense. It was not legally created as such; instead, the obscure United States Digital Service underwent a radical mutation in name and purpose by executive order, from improving the government’s use of information technology to decimating its agencies.

Given DOGE’s scope, a naïve observer would think its head would require Senate approval. The Senate did not assert that claim. Nor do many senators seem to believe this power over appointments is all that important. Their willingness to confirm the nomination of a recovered heroin addict and anti-vaxxer as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the head of the World Wrestling Federation as Secretary of Education, and a Fox & Friends Weekend host as Secretary of Defense marks the Appointments Clause as yet another failure.

Nor can the House of Representatives escape criticism for its dereliction of duty. The legal basis upon which Trump has launched his rollercoaster policy of raising, lowering, and suspending tariffs is less than flimsy, as the recent decision of the specialized Court of International Trade fully explains. The Constitution empowers Congress “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,” with the House of Representatives initiating steps. Congress has authorized the president to modify tariffs only in urgent cases when an emergency exists. It cannot delegate the authority to levy a shifting and massive tax (that is, a tariff ultimately paid by consumers) to the president to impose unilaterally, another power the Stuart crown tried to wield arbitrarily in the seventeenth century.

In the face of this congressional passivity, what path of constitutional repair is left open? Unsurprisingly, the best answer remains the courts. Although it has taken time to respond to the turmoil Trump has unleashed, the judiciary’s actions have been encouraging. Remarkably, the difference between Republican and Democratic-appointed judges has been slight, suggesting that judicial independence enshrined in Article III may be fulfilled amid this grave situation.

Yet, with the current Supreme Court, one cannot be too confident. Why? Its responses to the two 2024 critical election cases remain deeply troubling to anyone who takes the injunctions of the Constitution seriously. The Court handled one case with striking expedition. But it manifestly stalled the other with a run-out-the-clock set of procedural delays that deprived voters of findings they were entitled to possess before November 5. The decisions in Trump v. Anderson (which involved the application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to Trump’s eligibility to appear on the Colorado primary ballot) and Trump v. U.S. (the presidential immunity case) should sit atop any hit list of constitutional failures.

Two conditions define this failure. First, whatever its motivations, the Supreme Court majority simply refused to recognize the gravity of January 6, 2021, a date which stands as the constitutional counterpart to the surprise attacks of December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Rather than focus on specific facts and constitutional aspects of January 6 or confront the novel attempt of a sitting president to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, the majority insisted, in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s words, that “We’re writing a rule for the ages.” In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts similarly observed that “we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies” or “transient results.” One can only wonder what makes some unforeseeable future contingency more urgent than the facts at hand. Law evolves not by dealing with imaginary contingencies but by making sense of existing facts.

The second condition seems more surprising. It is the stunning inadequacy of the majority’s understanding of constitutional history and core concepts of American constitutionalism. In Trump v. United States, the chief justice emphasized the desire of the Framers to create an executive who could act with “vigor,” “energy,” and “dispatch.” Any threat of being prosecuted for undertaking decisions requiring these qualities would weaken the presidency, thus providing a rationale for presidential immunity.

That argument presents only half the story. The other quality the Framers insisted on and valued higher than “energy” and “vigor” was “responsibility,” which is best defined in Article II, requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That was the antithesis of what Trump did on January 6, which is precisely why his prosecution should have been expedited, not prevented.

The Court similarly erred in its concern about Trump’s indifferent willingness to put Vice President Michael Pence in danger. Here, the chief justice vaguely invoked the theory of separation of powers, stressing the close relationship between the president and vice president. But this emphasis badly misstates their relationship. For much of its history, the vice presidency was not—repeat, not—considered part of the executive. The office’s original sole constitutional function was to preside over the Senate. That was the capacity in which Pence was acting on January 6. The real threat to the separation of powers on January 6 came from the outgoing president’s depraved effort to stay in power.

The Supreme Court defaulted on its responsibility. Its duty was not to fret over future presidential prosecution but to deal with the facts at hand so that the electorate would be fully informed before November 5. By stifling the proceedings in Judge Tanya Chutkun’s courtroom, the Court made its unique and potentially lethal contribution to our failing Constitution.

In our fractious polity, fresh insults to constitutional norms and settled practices of governance occur daily. That is why the phrase constitutional crisis no longer describes our situation. The Constitution has failed, and we no longer know which institution will rescue it.

Jack Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science and (by courtesy) law, emeritus, at Stanford University.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .211.3.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... em/?page=2

Abrego Garcia v. Noem (8:25-cv-00951)
District Court, D. Maryland
Last Updated: July 4, 2025, 10:47 a.m.
Assigned To: Paula Xinis

211. Jul 2, 2025. MOTION for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint by A. A.V., Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support of Leave, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Amended Complaint, # 4 Original Complaint, # 5 Redline Complaint, # 6 Ex A, # 7 Ex B, # 8 Ex C, # 9 Ex D, # 10 Ex E, # 11 Ex F, # 12 Ex G, # 13 Ex H, # 14 Ex I, # 15 Ex J, # 16 Ex K, # 17 Ex L, # 18 Ex M, # 19 Ex N, # 20 Ex O, # 21 Ex P, # 22 Ex Q, # 23 Ex R)(Cooper, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/02/2025)

211.3 Amended Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Greenbelt Division
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia,
Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura,
A.A.V., a minor, by and through his next friend
and mother, Jennifer Vasquez Sura,
c/o Murray Osorio PLLC
8630 Fenton Street, Suite 918,
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security,
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20508
Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
Kenneth Genalo, Acting Executive Associate
Director, ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations,
Nikita Baker, ICE Baltimore Field Office Director,
500 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20536
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State,
The Executive Office of the Legal Adviser
and Bureau of Legislative Affairs
Suite 5.600
600 19th Street NW
Washington DC 20522
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-00951
Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 211-3 Filed 07/02/25 Page 1 of 40

1
FIRST AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia secured an order prohibiting Defendants
from removing him to El Salvador in 2019 (the “Withholding Order”), and was released from ICE
custody on supervised release shortly thereafter. Defendants were entitled to appeal the
Withholding Order or seek to set it aside utilizing well established judicial procedures. Deterred
by the factual record and findings supporting the Order, Defendants did neither. They instead chose
lawlessness.
2. On March 12, 2025, in the course of an unlawful arrest, Defendants stopped the car
Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was driving with his five year old disabled U.S.-citizen child, Plaintiff
A.A.V., forcibly removed Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from the car, and threatened to have child
services take his child. Following his unlawful detention, and as detailed below Defendants
improperly removed Plaintiff Abrego to El Salvador in violation of the Withholding Order and
without due process, where he at all times remained in Defendants’ constructive custody pursuant
to arrangements between Defendants and the El Salvadorian government. During Plaintiff’s
Abrego Garcia’s unlawful two and a half month incarceration in El Salvador he was threatened
and tortured.
3. In response to the unlawful incarceration of Plaintiff Abrego Garcia in El Salvador
at Defendants’ direction, on April 4, 2025, the Federal District Court of Maryland (the “District
Court”) ordered the government to facilitate the release and return of Abrego Garcia. ECF No. 31.
Following Defendants’ appeal and an affirmation from the Federal Appeals Court of the Fourth
Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No, 25-2345, 2025 WL 1021113, (4th Cir.
Apr. 7, 2025), on April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous decision
ordered Defendants to “‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to
Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 211-3 Filed 07/02/25 Page 2 of 40

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

xxx

*************************************

Trump Admin TIED to HORRIFIC ABUSE in DISTURBING New Lawsuit
by Katie Phang
Jul 3, 2025

Torture, Abuse, and Cruelty. Katie Phang on Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s new lawsuit that documents the disgusting treatment he experienced at CECOT and how the Trump Administration continues to violate his due process rights.



Transcript

Kilmar Abrego Garcia. You know his name.
I know his name. America knows his name.
He has received no due process. And he
has become kind of the banner name for
leading the charge against the illegal
illegal immigration enforcement
processes that the Trump administration
has pretended has pretended to try to
say actually works when we all know that
it hasn't. But what has Kilmer Argo
Garcia done? Well, folks, he has now
filed an amended complaint, an amended
lawsuit in federal court in Maryland. It
is a 40page lawsuit, and it's important
because it documents and it verifies and
it corroborates that Naive Blly, the
president of El Salvador, is running a
prison called Secot that we have heard
that people from the United States have
been sent to in the dead of night over
their objections. And it is a horrible
facility and it is one that the United
States has basically conscripted to be
used on their own to be able to house in
constructive c custody people that
otherwise um should be here in the
United States. Now this lawsuit is
important. It's being brought by Kilmar
Armando Abrego Garcia, which is his full
name. His wife Jennifer Stefania
Vasqueza and his minor child known by
the initials of AAV as in Victor. He's
suing Christy Noam Pam Bondi Marco
Rubio. But I wanted to highlight a few
things from this lawsuit for you because
it's really important. And again, Kelmer
Arga Garcia has now confirmed in his
lawsuit that there is torture. There is
torture and abuse that is being
inflicted upon the people that are at
SECOT. Now, before you come out me and
you say, "Oh, well, Katie, it's a prison
and it's a prison for terrorists and
gang people." I get it, okay? But guess
what? You can't abuse and torture those
people, too. It's still a prison and I
understand that you may be an advocate
for incarceration, which let me be very
clear. I am an advocate for
incarceration for people that have
committed crimes. But you cannot abuse
them and you cannot torture them. And
that is what Arrego Garcia says is
happening. So
the lawsuit is very clear in paragraph
five of his lawsuit. He clearly says
that the defendants meaning Christy Noam
Pam Body and others including Marco
Rubio. They have a disdain for the law
and legal process. Their cruelty shocks
the conscience and demands immediate
sustained judicial relief and oversight.
It also marks a profound constitutional
crisis in which executive agencies have
repeatedly and deliberately flouted the
authority of multiple federal courts,
including the Supreme Court itself. The
integrity of our constitutional republic
and the rule of law depends on plaintiff
Abrego Garcia's ability to obtain
complete relief for these egregious
wrongs, lest we accept a government that
operates above the law and beyond the
reach of judicial authority." End quote.
Boom. that accurately very quickly
summarizes the constitutional crisis
that we face right now. And the lawsuit
goes on to describe how those agencies
and those people like NOA and Bondi and
Rubio and DHS and ICE that they
completely and constantly and continue
to flout judicial orders and that they
continue to give the middle finger to
the judiciary when when they should be
giving it the equal respect that it
deserves. So, let's move on. Now,
important note to to remind everybody,
the defendants, the United States
government admitted that the removal of
Abrego Garcia was an administrative
error. Now, remember that, right? There
has been an admission that Kilmar Abrego
Garcia's removal from the United States
was an administrative error. And I'm
going to footnote this because you guys
will remember here at the Katy Fang News
channel, I covered Emil Bove's
nomination for the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals and how a whistleblower came
forward, Arz Raven, and how he said he's
the lawyer that went to court and said
that it was administrative error to
remove Kelmar Abrego Garcia. And
remember how all of the whistleblower um
letter came out and it said that there's
been affirmative lies that have been
told to the courts from DHS and ICE and
the DOJ? Well, yeah. So, it was an
administrative error. And here is the
relevant law. And there's a lot of it
here in the lawsuit, but I want to have
make sure you guys understand the basis
of this. Federal law prohibits the
government from removing a non-citizen
to a country where they are more likely
than not to face persecution on account
of a statutoily protected ground. This
protection is typically referred to as a
withholding of removal. That is what
Kelmer Argo Garcia had, an immigration
judge. Prior to him being illegally
removed recently, an immigration judge a
few years ago said that I'm gonna enter
a withholding of removal order so that
Abrego Garcia doesn't get returned to
the country where he was going to be
facing persecution, torture or abuse.
But of course, we do know that that has
since happened and that he's since been
brought back. But that's a whole other
whole other conversation. Let's go on
now on par starting in paragraph 43 and
the facts of this lawsuit. It says
clearly, "Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is a
citizen of El Salvador in no other
country. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is not
a member of and has no affiliation with
Tend Aragua, MS-13, or any other
criminal or street gang." And here's the
kicker. Paragraph 45. Although plaintiff
Garcia has been accused of general quote
gang affiliation, the US government has
never produced credible evidence
supporting this accusation and there has
been no finding made by any judicial
tribunal of any such affiliation. An
important uncontroverted fact. No
evidence has been brought forward by the
federal government to support the idea
that Kilmer Arrego Garcia is a member of
Tren de Aragua, the gang from El
Salvador.
Prior to April 2025, plaintiff Garcia
had no criminal history. Separate and
apart from his May 21st, 2025 Tennessee
indictment. Remember that that
one that they did to be able to bring
him back from El Salvador to face
federal charges. He has never been
charged or convicted of any criminal
charges in the United States, El
Salvador, or any other country. Didn't
Donald Trump say that he was just going
to be kicking out of the country all the
violent people?
guy's never had any prior contact with
the criminal justice system.
Paragraph 76. Before his unlawful
removal, plaintiff Abrego Garcia was a
union member and was employed full-time
as a firstear sheet metal apprentice. In
addition, he had been pursuing his own
license at the University of Maryland.
As a condition of his withholding of
removal status, he is required to check
in with ICE once a year. He has been
fully compliant. He appeared for his
most recent check-in on January 2nd,
2025 without incident. And they attach
actually here as an exhibit to this
lawsuit, his check-in records.
Paragraph 79 just reinforces there's
there remains no known leak or
association between him and the MS-13
gang or any other gang. And no judicial
tribunal has found that any such link or
association exists. Again underscoring
that there are no facts or evidence that
supports the government's claim that
Kilmer Argo Garcia is a member of a gang
and that's the reason why he should be
removed from the United States. Now the
lawsuit continues to go on and it's
worth reading people because it makes
clear that Abrego Garcia was duped time
and time again by the federal government
after he was taken into custody and
before he was removed to see in El
Salvador. He asked to speak to a lawyer.
He wanted to be able to see a judge. He
wanted to make sure that he got the
relief that he was legally required to
receive. And every time he was reassured
falsely that he wasn't going to be
deported to El Salvador, but rather was
being transported to Texas to appear
before a judge. Relying on this
misrepresentation, plaintiff Garcia
cooperated with further transport. Now,
this is before they took him from
Maryland and that they were going to put
him on a flight to Louisiana and then he
was going to go to Texas. I mean,
remember the federal government is
moving people around very quickly. So,
it makes it harder for them to not only
have counsel and representation, but
harder for people like us and family
members to be able to find them, to be
able to help them. And that was
paragraph 92.
Paragraph 99. Abrego Garcia consistently
kept on telling them, "Look, I have
legal permission to work in the United
States until 2029. I have a a
withholding a removal. I He repeatedly
requested judicial review. officials
consistently responded with false
assurances that he would see a judge
deliberately misleading plaintiff Abrego
Garcia. Now eventually when he made it
to El Salvador and he was put in SECOT,
his family hired a lawyer in El
Salvador. Paragraph 105. To date, there
are no known criminal charges levied
against plaintiff Abrego Garcia in El
Salvador. Paragraph 106. ICE and DHS
have taken no steps to reopen the
removal case of plaintiff Abrego Garcia,
nor to challenge or rescend his
withholding order. Now, here's where it
gets particularly
upsetting because now we actually have a
firsthand firthand
description of how people are treated
when they are in custody at SECOT.
Firsthand from plaintiff Abrego Garcia
himself.
He was one of 261 non-citizens,
including 238 Venezuelans and 23
Salvadorans, that were sent on March
15th, 2025 to El Salvador without going
through any legal processes whatsoever
in front of an immigration judge.
That was paragraph 110.
Paragraph 112. Upon information and
belief, all defendants are aware that
the government of El Salvador tortures
individuals detained in SECOT. Indeed,
US President Donald Trump has made
comments to the press expressing glee
and delight at the torture that the
government of El Salvador inflicts upon
detainees in SECOT.
SECOT conditions have garnered attention
for human rights organizations. Each of
the 256 cells is intended to only hold
approximately 80 inmates, but often
holds nearly double. The cramped cells
are equipped with tiered metal bunks
with no mattresses, two basins for
washing, and two open toilets. There are
no windows, fans, or air conditioning
despite the region's warm and humid
climate. Inmates in SECOT are confined
to their cells for 23.5 hours daily and
cannot go outdoors. I'm going to repeat
that for you. Inmates and SECOT are
confined to their cells for 23.5 hours
daily and cannot go outdoors. 23 and a
half hours. Last I checked, there's 24
hours in a day. So for other than 30
minutes in a day, other than 30 minutes,
inmates and seccott are confined to
their cells. They are denied access to
reading materials. They are prohibited
from receiving visits from family and
friends. Meals are provided through the
bars, the bars of the cells.
Paragraph 115. In May of 2023,
Christoal, a leading human rights
organization in El Salvador, released a
comprehensive report detailing severe
human rights abuses within the country's
prison system, especially at SECOT. The
investigation documented the deaths of
153 inmates between March 27th of 2022
and March 27th of 2023, attributing many
to torture, beatings, mechanical
esphyxiation, otherwise known as
strangulation, and lack of medical
attention. Autopsies revealed common
patterns of lacerations, hematomas,
sharp object wounds, and signs of
choking or strangulation. Survivors
reported being forced to pick food off
the floor of their mouths, subjected to
electric shocks, and exposed to
untreated skin fungus epidemics.
Arrego Garcia then goes on to describe
in this lawsuit how he was treated. He
was beaten. He was forced to strip,
subjected to physical abuse, including
being kicked in the legs with boots and
struck on his head and arms. He was
struck with wooden batons. He was forced
to kneel from approximately 9:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m. in a cell. Guards would strike
anyone who fell from exhaustion. He was
denied bathroom access soiled himself,
confined to metal bunks with no
mattresses, in an overcrowded cell with
no windows, with bright lights that
remained on 24 hours a day and minimal
access to sanitation. Gang members
violently harm each other with no
intervention from guards or personnel.
During his first two weeks at SECOT,
this is paragraph 126. Plaintiff Abra
Garcia suffered a significant
deterioration in his physical condition
and lost approximately 31 pounds. But on
April 9th, now remember, as time is
going by, his name is becoming more and
more wellknown in the media, right? So
more and more people are paying
attention to what's happening to him. So
on April 9th, he and four others were
transferred to a different module at
Secot where they were photographed with
mattresses and better food, photos that
were staged to document improved
conditions. And then he was transferred
alone to the Centro Industrial Prison
Facility, another location the next day
on April 10th. While at that prison
facility, he was frequently hidden from
visitors so that people couldn't see
him. Right. And then he was basically
denied any communication with anyone
until Senator Van Galand visited him on
April 17th. Now, it's a multi-count
lawsuit that includes things like
violation of the removal statute, uh,
violation of his due process rights
under the fifth amendment, and it goes
on. And as we always do here at the Katy
Fang News Channel, what have we talked
about? We talk about going to the
request for relief or the prayer for
relief. And in this lawsuit, it's on
page 39.
Kilmar Origa Garcia seeks the following.
He wants a declaration that the
defendants have violated the laws of the
United States and the fifth amendment to
the United States Constitution. Those
are the due process rights we've talked
about. He wants to be reto restored to
the status quo anti-meating before he
was taken into custody in Maryland. Um
he wants to be able to go back to that
time in terms of his immigration status
into his life. Frankly, he wants a writ
of habius corpus. We've talked about
habius corpus here at the Katy Fang News
Channel. He wants the court to bring him
in front of the court, which it kind of
has at this point, right? I mean, he is
back on US soil, but he wants the court
to order the defendants to show cause
why continued detention is lawfully
permissible and if they cannot meet
their burden, that he wants the court to
say that he can be immediately released
from custody. Stop. Footnote. So, we
know that a federal majesty judge has
ordered his release on his pending
criminal case, but we also know that
he's now asked to stay in custody
because he knows that as soon as he's
released from jail that ICE is going to
take him and immediately deport him. So,
he's in a no-win situation. So, I want
you to stop and consider the fact that
this man who has now suffered all of
this abuse in SECOT and all of this
horrific treatment by the federal
government that he's actually
voluntarily asking to stay in federal
custody right now in jail because he
doesn't want to be immediately deported
because then we'll never get him back.
He also wants uh the defendants to be
ordered to return him to his prior order
of supervision. You know, the one where
he was checking in yearly to ICE and
there was no incident and the one where
he was living in the United States so
that he wouldn't be removed to El
Salvador because he would be persecuted
because he fled El Salvador as a child
to escape gang violence. You know that
part? Well, he wants to be able to just
go back to living his life with his wife
and his kid and to work and he wasn't
here violating any laws. I mean, people
again, Kilmar Orga Garcia is one of
hundreds of of people that have been
rounded up and shipped out of the United
States in the dead of night with no due
process. And I understand that we focus
a lot on him. And his name again has
kind of become like the banner name for
for the movement and for the cause of
making sure that everybody gets their
constitutionally guaranteed due process.
But this is an incredibly incredibly
well-written lawsuit. And as always, we
want to give attribution to the people
that deserve it. The law firm of Quinn
Emanuel, powerhouse litigation law firm,
has been doing this work on a proono
basis, representing Kelmar Argo Garcia,
and you can find their names on page 40
of this lawsuit. They deserve credit,
people, for the work that they're doing
on behalf of him against the Trump
administration. I just want to quickly
say we have to look at this lawsuit and
we have to see that it's an important
one because it provides details that
corroborate stuff that we know about
human rights violations and treatment of
cruelty and abuse and torture that is
happening at places like CCOT. You know,
Blly, the president of El Salvador, came
here to the United States and sat in our
oval office. It's not Donald Trump's
oval office. He came and he sat in our
oval office and he laughed and he joked
with JD Vance and Marco Rubio and and
Donald Trump and and and you know he's
like, you know, why would I bring him
back here? You know, why would I
facilitate a terrorist returning to the
United States? There's no evidence that
Kelmargo Garcia is a terrorist. There
has been no evidence that many of the
people that have been swept up in these
immigration raids have committed a
single crime whatsoever.
They are just rounding you up because
you are brown. They are rounding you up
because you look like you are Hispanic.
They just want to get rid of the
Latinos,
you know, and you thought that they were
only going to go after certain people.
Well, that was really foolish, right?
Because have we seen from people like
Laura Loomer, the vilest of the vile?
She's now posted on social media and I
want to pull it up because it's
worthwhile sharing with you because it's
just disgusting. This is what Laura
Loomer posted on that cesspool, which is
X. But here you go. She did the
following and I'm going to show it to
you right now. Alligator lives matter.
The good news is alligators are
guaranteed at least 65 million meals if
we get started now. Now, this is for
that alligator Alcatraz abomination
concentration camp that Ronda Santis is
also gleefully so excited about that
Donald Trump came and toured with
Christine Noom and they're standing
there laughing and joking around in that
concentration camp. And here's the
thing, the entire Latino population in
the United States is 65 million. So
Laura Loomer then tries to save herself
by saying there are 65 million illegal
aliens in the United States. And yet she
gets fact checked. The US population of
illegal immigrants is estimated to be 11
to 12 million.
I'm not even going to give credence even
to the fact check in in the regard that
it doesn't make a difference. But this
is what we're talking about though,
right? Laura Loomer is calling for the
complete eradication of Latinos from the
United States. And if you think she's
going to stop with just them or that the
Republicans are just going to stop with
Latinos or Hispanics, you're dead ass
wrong. They're going to just start
trying to find excuses to be able to
eliminate anybody from the United States
that doesn't meet their white Christian
nationalist agenda. And the most
ridiculous thing is we're all children
of immigrants.
barring somebody who is of one of the
original tribes, right? We're all
children of immigrants. We're all
basically immigrants. So, it's time to
be and it's time to continue to be mad,
outraged, and to demand accountability.
This this 40-page lawsuit, people, this
is what we call a demand for
accountability.
This is what we call using the judicial
system to be able to achieve
accountability. We're going to watch the
this lawsuit carefully as we've been
watching most of these cases carefully.
I wanted you to know about the facts of
this case because I thought it was
really important for you to know. Um I
care. I care deeply and I want to make
sure that you care just as deeply
because we have to be here for each
other. I'll see you on the other side.
Katie Fang here. The truth matters now
more than ever. So, hit that subscribe
button so you don't miss a thing.