Judge Napolitano - Searching for Monsters

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Here's a nine for twenty one to four K seat
advisor tonight at eight probably longer air quality alert till tomorrow.
Midnight today hot ninety six with the high with isolated
evening storms seventy one overnight with muggy conditions ninety six
with late afternoon storms tomorrow, a possibility anyway overnight down
to seventy three and a chance of storms after two
pm on Friday, and a high of ninety eight. It

(00:22):
is seventy six right now. Ty for traffic from the
ucut Tramphic Center.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
At the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, you can access the
leading brain, spine and nerve experts right here in Cincinnati.
Westbound two seventy five continues to run just over an
extra hour between Milford and Montgomery thanks to several accidents earlier.
South Bend seventy five break lights continue out of Sharonville
through Lachland. There's a wreck in Bend seventy four that

(00:48):
hands the North Bend seventy five rand blocked off. That's
banking traffic to the North Bend. Coming up next, Special guests,
who is ready to celebrate National Red Wine Day. As
a matter of fact, he happens to be a wine expert,
so he's thinking about starting a new podcast for his
recommendations for a good merlot on Labor Day weekend. He

(01:11):
just can't figure out what to call it. Should it
be called Read between the Wines? Or poor decision? To
judge us? Next Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the
talk station. I think he worked on that one.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
Oh god, he apparently did. It was actually hilarious at
the very end. I didn't know where he was going.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Good morning, Brian, Judge you judge editor Poulatada, who does
to a podcast. You can find him online Judging Freedom.
And of course we always end our segment with the
judge every Wednesday with who he's going to be talking to.
We will do the same today. I am doing well,
your honor, with the exception of things out of my control.
Of course, the world seems to be falling apart regardless
of where you look. But in my personal space everything

(01:54):
is in order, and I appreciate your asking. I hope
you can say the same, my friend. Yes, yes, you
look a little distressed there at the outset of our feed.
There we're having we're experiencing some technical difficulties throughout the
week with the zoom conferencing, so.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Yes, I could tell I was a lot of hoops
through which.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
To jump and apologies, and Joe Strecker is as frustrated
as I am because it's been shutting down and popping
back up. So we'll overcome those challenges. You'll remain audio capable,
regardless of whether I can see your face, which is
always a pleasure seeing. So searching for monsters, you know,
I responded to your column which comes out tonight midnight.

(02:34):
I'm fortunate enough to get an advanced copy with sort
of the old turnabouts fair play. You know, do unto
others as they would do unto you. And I posed
the question out loud earlier in anticipation of this conversation
with you. You know, what if the Iranians decided somebody here
in the United States was an enemy, an evil person.
I know they put a hit list out for Donald Trump,
among others, and they came into our country, kidnapped them,

(02:56):
and took them back to Iran, would that be okay?
I think we would be outraged collectively, and yet it's
okay for us to do it.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, you know, we are according to Joe Biden, and
according to the Republicans, the indispensable nation, and we can
do things that nobody else can do. We can conduct coups,
we can start illegal wars, and we can kidnap people.
The President of the United States can even kill people

(03:27):
in foreign countries, like Donald Trump with General Solomony, or
even worse, Barack Obama with Onwar Alackei and his son,
both of whom were Americans, and neither of them had
been charged with any crime whatsoever. General Solomony hadn't been
charged with a crime either. This all began when the

(03:49):
Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor
from his office in Mexico, alleging that he was using
false inscriptions to overprescribed fentanyl to Mexican patients. So we're
then taking the fentanyl and doing whatever they do with
it and selling it in the United States. He was

(04:10):
violently kidnapped and brought to Texas for trial. He challenged
the kidnapping. The case went all the way to the
Supreme Court before he was tried, and the Supreme Court said,
we don't care how he got here.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
Now that.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
Was permitted because there was at least a nexus between
what the government said he did falsifying prescriptions and Americans
being harmed. Since then, under Joe Biden's the reason for
my column, yeah, has changed the law to remove the
American harm nexus. So now federal courts can hear cases

(04:53):
of anybody kidnapped anywhere for any reason, as long as
they're physically present in the courtroom, whether they have violated
an American statute or not, whether they have harmed an
American person or American property or not. There's no longer
the nexus of American harm required. That's what has me

(05:14):
so aggravated. How does the government decide who the monsters
are that it wants to kidnap and bring to the
United States for political reasons? What other basis would there be?
Is that what the constitution authorizes? Of course not?

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Well, is it possible? I mean, my legal brain is
trying to process the absurdity of what you just explained
very clearly and succinctly, a sort of a reverse standing
argument that a defendant could make. You know, there is
no harm. There is no statue you can point to
that I've violated. I did not harm a single American.
You don't have standing to even bring me in the court. Moreover,

(05:52):
you shouldn't be able to kidnap me anyway. But that's
almost like it seems like a parenthetical since the Supreme
Court ruled that it didn't matter how the guy got there.

Speaker 3 (05:59):
You know, Supreme Court's attitude about this is one of
two ways. Either they really don't care what the executive
branch does prior to the introduction of the person into
the courtroom, or or I'll give them credit. They were
counting on that American nexus requirement. Okay, you were in Mexico,

(06:21):
you violated, You committed an act which if done in
the United States would have been a serious crime. But
you did harm Americans. I can understand that. But by
Congress removing the nexus connection, the connection between what the
defendant did and a harm to an American person or

(06:41):
American property, and telling the federal courts they must hear
these cases, Congress has permitted the President of the United
States to dispatch a private army to kidnap whoever he wants,
for whatever reason he wants, concoct the case against him
he's never been to the United States of America and
bring him to the United States. Could a future president

(07:05):
kidnap Benjamin Netanyahu and claim that he committed to genocide,
which is against American law, even though he had nothing. Well,
the United States paid for it. Maybe it's not a
good example, but theoretically, under this, under this statute, and
under the Supreme Court's prior ruling, the answer is yes, wow,

(07:29):
you know.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
And I also think to extradition treaties, I mean, there's
an incentive for us to engage in diplomacy and enjoy
reciprocal extradition if you know what.

Speaker 3 (07:39):
We have an extradition treaty with Mexico.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
I thought so.

Speaker 3 (07:44):
And this is where the Supreme Court's logic was really
off base, because the extradition treaty does not prohibit kidnapping,
therefore it condones it. I mean, that is absurd. That
would flunk a first year law school test.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
And we're our law enforcement folks. My understanding of course,
because of your column and it's well written, and I'm
courage my listeners to get a copy of it. Searching
for monsters were we invited into their country because this
is this would be like you know of a police
force from say, I don't know, Nebraska coming into Cincinnati
and grabbing someone and taking them, even though if they

(08:27):
went through proper channels, they could get that person delivered
to Nebraska for an outstanding warrant. We would cooperate were
we there by invitation.

Speaker 3 (08:35):
Not invited into their country. But guess how we got
in there by bribing the local police chief with your
tax dollars and mine and the tax dollars of everybody
listening to us. Now, what happens when the government breaks
its own laws. It kidnaps and bribes the very crimes

(08:55):
for which it investigates and prosecutes people.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
You know, it's funny because there are laws on the books.
You're honor and I know you know this, but are
just saying it out aloud. To draw the contrast. It's
like if government does it, it's okay, but you're not
allowed to do it. If you're a company doing business
in a foreign country that is a corrupt country, say
Mexico to a certain degree, and locals there are prohibiting
you from doing business unless you pay them a bribe.

(09:21):
If you pay them a bribe, you could be prosecuted
in the United States for engaging in acts of bribery.

Speaker 3 (09:27):
Correct. But if you are the federal government and you
bribe them, no harm, no foul, The courts couldn't care less.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
Wow. And again I read.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
My first book is called This Is Twenty years Ago
Constitutional Chaos. What happens when the government breaks its own laws?
And the book is filled with these examples. And my
favorite is a federal district court judge who was set
up by the Feds and prosecuted for bribery, and at

(09:59):
his they bribed a witness to testify against him. He
was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit throughout the conviction and
large measure because of that. That is the most extreme
example I've ever heard of the Feds bribing a witness
to testify against a judge and a bribery case.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
Wow. I brought up in an illustration. Earlier, someone brought
up Kamala Harris's a brilliant, economically miserable, stupid idea of
price fixing. You know, you're being gouged, and we're going
to set a price, some maximum price it can be charged.
You know, if private businesses went behind the doors of
a closed room and sat down together and collectively agreed
that they would not charge less than X dollars amount

(10:39):
per pound of bee or chicken, or whatever. They'd be
prosecuted for violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. But
if our lords and masters in Washington decide what the
price of chicken is going to be, it's okay for
them to do it.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
You know. I'm giving a talk at the run Pall
Institute along with my friend and colleague, Professor John Meerscheimer
of the University Chicago this weekend, and my talk is
on taking rights seriously. And in that talk, I'm going
to compare natural law based on morality the same for
everybody and positivism. The law is whatever the lawgiver says

(11:15):
it is, so we can allow ourselves to do whatever
we want. You could count on one hand the members
of Congress, Thomas Massey of course, among them, who believe
that morality restrains the government. Everybody else Republicans, Democrats, liberals,
conservatives believe the government can do whatever the hell it wants.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
As greatly illustrated and brilliantly illustrated by your column again
Searching for Monsters, available tonight at midnight. Judging Freedom is
a judge of Paultona's podcast and conversations with some wonderful guests,
Your honor, who is on the plate today.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
Oh, I have my heaviest hitters on today because I
need to be with the run prol group on Friday.
Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock Eastern and Scott Ritter
at four o'clock Eastern. These are my biggest draws and
they are close friends of mine and am looking forward
to the conversations McGregor about the coming war in the

(12:14):
Middle East and Ridder about the coming war with Russia.
Does anybody know how close we are to war? Well?

Speaker 1 (12:24):
As you know, I always like to say I like
to end on a positive note with you, in a
comical note, but we're not going to be able to
do that today because yes, I am painfully aware of
how close we are. It scares the hell out of me.
Judge Outnapaula Towna. God bless you, sir. They'll be looking
for your podcast Judging Freedom. I'm looking forward to next Wednesday. Already,
have a great day and a great week, sir.

Speaker 3 (12:43):
Right back at you, Brian, all the best.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
Thanks very much. Hey, forty one, come out of an
eight forty two fifty five care see the talk station
and it's time to get to mention covers since he
and I talked to John Rowman every Sunday on the
Morning Show. It's not the Morning Show on Sunday, it's
we call it Rethink Healthcare Together. Just brilliant John Roman
and his team at Cover. Since you know every single
thing there is possible to know about medical insurance, including

(13:08):
for my friends that are getting up in years getting
ready to get on medicare some real big red flags.
It's important for you to talk with one of the
team that covers SINCEY. Have them look at your current insurance.
It doesn't take very long. They'll evaluate what you've got
and tell you what you can do which will be better.
They work with hundreds of insurance companies thousands of medical plans,

(13:30):
which allows them to customize medical insurance for your specific
set of circumstances. Point in life where you are, maybe
you've got a family with small kids, maybe you're getting
ready to retire. There's a bunch of different areas in
any point in life. It's worth calling cover SINCEY because
you're probably paying too much, and you're paying too much
out of pocket, so premium and then out of pocket responsibility.

(13:51):
How about dollar one coverage? There are so many ways
to make medical insurance far more flexible and more convenient,
like not having a network that's really small. That means
when you travel, you're not gonna be able to get
medical care without you know, paying massive sums out of pocket.
It doesn't take much but a phone call or a
form to fill out online, and you will be amazed
what they do every single day. They're saving, say couples

(14:12):
under sixty five, five hundred to one thousand dollars a
month with better coverage. Yep, time is all. It takes
in a very little amount. Five one three eight hundred
two two five five, no obligation, just let them look
under the hood of what you got. Five one three
eight hundred. Call online. That's where the form can be
filled out and you can learn more about the team
coversincy dot com fifty five KRC the talk station a

(14:36):
U line they know