December 3, 2025 • 14 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
On medical obesity, care and expertise. Caught five one three, nine, three,
nine two two sixty three. That's nine thirty nine twenty
two sixty three. Satbound seventy five continues to get heavier
from well above one twenty nine to your past and
accident at Cincinnati Daton Road. Right side blocked sapbound seventy one.
Left side's blocked with an accident Nearfield's hurdle, some icy
(00:22):
conditions westbound two seventy five and seventy five above Sharonville.
It's an accident now on the right shoulder. Northbound seventy
five continues slow out of Florence into downtown. On this
the mooting of the company Christmas party, I decided to
rewrite some Christmas tunes. Like he knows when balls are shakey,
(00:43):
the Constitution thrives, he knows when power is breaking through,
and he's cutting through the lives up the Judge's next
on this happy momentous holiday. Chuck Ingram fifty five krs
the talk station.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Something tells me Chuck Ingram was looking at chat ept
this morning. I don't know if he's got the skills
to write lyrics like that, but that was a pretty
good one as far as.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I was over the top, and he's got a great
singing choice.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Judge Streker Joe Strecker, executive producer, said he wrote that
for Chuck. That's great. Oh wow, oh my, we get
to mark that one down to the top ten. Anyway,
sometimes he fumbles the ball, but today I think he
hit it home for the holidays, and it is the
I heard Christmas party today here for the cluster of
(01:40):
radio stations, so he was springing from that. Judge Annon Apoloitano,
welcome back. I enjoy this time of the week as
much or more than almost any other. I don't want
to short shrift any of my other guests, but this
is a great time for me because you and I
see really eye to eye on most things. This libertarian philosophy,
the belief in the constitution and a limited guy government.
(02:00):
And I love your column Murder for Christmas. This is
a topic we've talked about, and of course it is
a hot topic of late blowing up boats outside of Venezuela.
But now we have Donald Trump saying, and I'll quote this,
that he's planning on hitting targets in the land. The
land is much easier and much means we know, we
(02:21):
know the roots where they are. We're going to start
those strikes on land too. I read that, and I'm thinking,
by what authority is he bringing us into a war?
I mean, Venezuela might likely declare war in the United States,
not that they have the military means to fight us off,
but he, by unilateral action, could literally bring us to
(02:42):
the brink or actual war with a foreign nation. By
what authority.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
He has no respect for the Constitution, for the Congress,
and Congress has no respect for itself. Congress will do
nothing to stop the murders in the Caribbean of people
in the boats, so people who survived the original attack
on the boats, and Congress is apparently going to do
nothing to stop him from invading Venezuela. The Constitution couldn't
(03:11):
be clearer, Congress to Claire's war. The president wages war.
The President and the Senate have ratified treaties that limit
our war making power to those where there is a
serious threat to American national security or the national security
(03:31):
of an ally to which we are bound by treaty.
No one can say that Venezuela opposes a serious national
security threat to the United States. Oh Let's see there
were some drugs on those boats. How about the four
hundred tons of cocaine shipped into the United States by
(03:57):
the guy that Donald Trump just sprung from a forty
five year prison sentence.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
You're read my mind, So.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I'm not sure where we're going here. There's obviously different motivations.
I think Trump was either trying to influence Latin American
elections or please some intermediary, some friend of his and
the former president of Honduras. But the killing is absolutely
(04:26):
unjustified under American law, and heg Seth has made it
worse by mocking it with this cartoon of a child's turtle,
something I had never heard of before, but of course
I did the research.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Franklin the turtle, Yeah, Franklin the turtle means a.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Child's cartoon, which heg Seth posted holding some sort of
a missile in his hand, blowing up a bote and saying,
wishless for Christmas. Come on, when the right mind for
this for children?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Now, of course, satire it may be, and it's a
sad reflection of the state of our political discourse in
this world that we communicate by virtue of memes. Left
does it the right, does it. We've devolved into this
one little tiny photograph, comical or not as one perceives it.
That's how people either advance or reject any political ideology.
(05:23):
And I think it's a sorry state of affairs for
political discourse. But grabbing a couple of words from your column,
which again is murder for Christmas, I'm fortunate enough to
get an advanced copy. It does come out at midnight
outside of a legally declared war in which US military
personnel are engaged in legally killing armed military personnel. I
don't need to read the whole sentence, but the salient
(05:44):
point outside of a llegally declared war. Now, I'm going
back to these six members of Congress who released that
video urging members to refuse quote unquote illegal orders. Now
they face a lot of BA backlash for that. Some
were threatening to court martial them. Whatever, we got the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, we can look to and
see exactly what it says. But every time any one
of the six who released that video were on the
(06:05):
talking Head program, they were asked specifically, can you name
an illegal order? Not one of them uttered a syllable.
Why didn't they go to the point that you make
in this article, which is you can't do that because
there's no authorized, constitutionally military declared war from Congress.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
I don't know why. I mean, they started a great debate,
but they didn't finish it. You're correct, they didn't back down,
but not a single one would articulate which orders are illegal.
It is clear as day that it is illegal to
kill an unarmed, non violent, non combatant. Nothing could be clearer.
(06:46):
That is a war crime. It's a war crime for
everybody involved, from the Secretary of Events down or whoever
pulled the trigger or pressed the button that dispatched the
weapon that destroyed the boat and the people on it. It's
not even a close call. Why they wouldn't articulate it
that way, I really, I really don't know. You know,
(07:08):
politicians are strange people. They're always trying to think two
steps ahead. They're always trying to think about compromise. They're
always trying to think about how can I scratch somebody
else's back so they'll scratch mine. This is not a
profession for people who are intellectually scrupulous.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, along those lines, could it be that they were
thinking two steps forward and realizing if they did articulate
that this is not a legally justifiable under the Constitution.
There's been no declaration of where you can't launch bombs
against those folks in the boats or on land because
their side of the political equation did it too. We've
got a history of presidents Republican and Democrat doing the
(07:50):
same damn thing.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Correct, correct, the same as I mentioned in the piece,
that you have the same office of not the same
human beings because we're going back twenty years presumably, but
the same office. By the way, that office was once
headed by two very well known people, William Rehnquist, the
(08:12):
late Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia, the late Associate Justice.
This is an office in the Justice Department that has
the best and the brightest. They advise the rest of
the DOJ what the law is.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
But this is the.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Same office that issued a secret opinion telling George W.
Bush he could torture people, Barack Obama he could kill
two Americans, including a child, who were not engaged in
violence while they were in Yemen, and apparently has told
Trump that he can blow up these boats. I say
apparently because Trump will not reveal and the Attorney General
(08:47):
will not reveal the legal opinion for the rest of
us to scrutinize it. I can't imagine what kind of
law they cited, and I can't imagine why it's secret.
There are no secret laws. We're talking about a legal
argument here, we're not talking about classified information.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
So you get an advisory of painting because there is no,
I guess, definitive case law on this, you know, extra
judicial war waging that's been going on for so long?
Why and in what forum? Assuming the Democrats wanted to
stand up and say no, no, no, Moss, or even
a guy like Senator Rampaul, who was equally critical and
made the very point you made. We let a Narco,
(09:22):
the former president who'd been convicted of drug smuggling, out
on a pardon, and yet we're blowing him up real
time on folks who hadn't been through the due process.
But what forum, what tribunal, what congressional hearing? How does
one bring someone accountable if they choose to do so,
which clearly neither political party wanted to do over all
these years.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I would think that Pete heg Seth is not long
for his job, and I would think that whoever his
successor is would convene a court martial for Admiral Bradley
and everybody else along the chain of command, because the
Uniform Code of Military Justice says, not only may and
that kill a survivor, a shipwrecked survivor, you have a
(10:05):
duty to rescue him. You have to rescue the person
you just tried and failed to kill. That's the law.
This admiral knows the law. A petty sailor swabbing the
deck of an aircraft carrier knows the law. They are
told this the third day of basic training.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Going back to the initial fundamental problem we have here,
if there was even an authorization for use of military force,
which you and I agree probably not even constitutional itself,
but they've got those kind of things. If Congress issued
an authorization for use of military force against the drug dealers,
then we would effectively be at war with them, like
the war on terror that we've been waging over the
(10:47):
Middle East for so many decades. Then in an act
of war, which that effectively would be, you do kill
all the people who are fighting against you.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
You don't have to.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
I mean, we've seen people gunshots from two miles away
hidden Afghanistan terrorists, even though they weren't aiming a gun
at one of our military personnel because we were operating
in a military theater. Kill them all. Let God sort
it out. That's okay when you actually have a declaration
of war, right.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Well, believe it or not. If a person's surrendering, you
can't surrender. If a person's waving a white flag, you
can't kill them. If There's a very famous case during
World War Two where the Germans blew up a submarine
and the German commander ordered the sailors in the ocean
(11:35):
to be machine gunned. That commander was tried, convicted, and
executed by his own Nazi leadership for violating basic laws
of war. You can't kill survivors of your failure to
kill them. That's been a law of war for hundreds
of years. It is clearly in the Uniform Code of
Military Justice of the United States. Clearly, Admiral Bradley, there's
(12:00):
self a former Navy seal, knows what this law is.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
So how do you see this shaken out?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
There are a lot of Republicans, not just Rand Paul
and Thomas Massey. There are a lot of Republicans aggravated
by this. And this may be the last straw for
them with Donald Trump trashing the Constitution. But all they
can do is hold hearings and expose. They could impeach
(12:30):
Pete heg Seth. They can actually impeach the admiral if
they want, because he's got four stars and the fourth
star only came by confirmation from the Senate. They can't prosecute,
of course, because of the prohibition on bills of attainder,
and the Justice Department's not going to prosecute anybody. But
(12:53):
this is murder. There's no statue of limitations. This is
a war crime. There's no statute of limitations. These people
could be prosecuted in an international court. They could be
prosecuted in a federal court under a different administration. They
could be prosecuted in the court of the country from
which their victims came, if they could physically be brought there.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Well, But then politicians thinking two steps down the road
appreciate that. Well, you know, those Democrats may very well
have their person in office down the road, and they're
going to want as much flexibility along these lines as
other prior presidents of both political stripes have apparently had.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Barack Obama in his autobiography. This is a reprehensible phrase,
but he wrote it. I'm very good at.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Killing Wow, Judge Enna Palatano, Judging Freedom of the podcast.
We all like to listen to it. Who's on today,
judg Enna Paltano.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
I have our man in Siria kivork al Masian, who
tells us what's going on there. I have Phil GERALDI
I have Aaron mate Tomorrow. My heavy hitter is Colonel
Douglas McGregor and Professor John should be.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
A great, great discussion, as it always is, Judging Freedom
Judging in Apoloitown every Wednesday at eight thirty here in
the fifty five Caressey Morning Show. God bless you, sir.
Enjoy the holiday season. I know we'll be talking before Christmas,
but I just want to get you out of holiday
for the next Wednesday. Brian, take care, my friend. It's
eight forty three coming up in e forty four. Help
for Charity, Brian Ibil
On medical obesity, care and expertise. Caught five one three, nine, three,
nine two two sixty three. That's nine thirty nine twenty
two sixty three. Satbound seventy five continues to get heavier
from well above one twenty nine to your past and
accident at Cincinnati Daton Road. Right side blocked sapbound seventy one.
Left side's blocked with an accident Nearfield's hurdle, some icy
(00:22):
conditions westbound two seventy five and seventy five above Sharonville.
It's an accident now on the right shoulder. Northbound seventy
five continues slow out of Florence into downtown. On this
the mooting of the company Christmas party, I decided to
rewrite some Christmas tunes. Like he knows when balls are shakey,
(00:43):
the Constitution thrives, he knows when power is breaking through,
and he's cutting through the lives up the Judge's next
on this happy momentous holiday. Chuck Ingram fifty five krs
the talk station.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Something tells me Chuck Ingram was looking at chat ept
this morning. I don't know if he's got the skills
to write lyrics like that, but that was a pretty
good one as far as.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I was over the top, and he's got a great
singing choice.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Judge Streker Joe Strecker, executive producer, said he wrote that
for Chuck. That's great. Oh wow, oh my, we get
to mark that one down to the top ten. Anyway,
sometimes he fumbles the ball, but today I think he
hit it home for the holidays, and it is the
I heard Christmas party today here for the cluster of
(01:40):
radio stations, so he was springing from that. Judge Annon Apoloitano,
welcome back. I enjoy this time of the week as
much or more than almost any other. I don't want
to short shrift any of my other guests, but this
is a great time for me because you and I
see really eye to eye on most things. This libertarian philosophy,
the belief in the constitution and a limited guy government.
(02:00):
And I love your column Murder for Christmas. This is
a topic we've talked about, and of course it is
a hot topic of late blowing up boats outside of Venezuela.
But now we have Donald Trump saying, and I'll quote this,
that he's planning on hitting targets in the land. The
land is much easier and much means we know, we
(02:21):
know the roots where they are. We're going to start
those strikes on land too. I read that, and I'm thinking,
by what authority is he bringing us into a war?
I mean, Venezuela might likely declare war in the United States,
not that they have the military means to fight us off,
but he, by unilateral action, could literally bring us to
(02:42):
the brink or actual war with a foreign nation. By
what authority.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
He has no respect for the Constitution, for the Congress,
and Congress has no respect for itself. Congress will do
nothing to stop the murders in the Caribbean of people
in the boats, so people who survived the original attack
on the boats, and Congress is apparently going to do
nothing to stop him from invading Venezuela. The Constitution couldn't
(03:11):
be clearer, Congress to Claire's war. The president wages war.
The President and the Senate have ratified treaties that limit
our war making power to those where there is a
serious threat to American national security or the national security
(03:31):
of an ally to which we are bound by treaty.
No one can say that Venezuela opposes a serious national
security threat to the United States. Oh Let's see there
were some drugs on those boats. How about the four
hundred tons of cocaine shipped into the United States by
(03:57):
the guy that Donald Trump just sprung from a forty
five year prison sentence.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
You're read my mind, So.
Speaker 3 (04:06):
I'm not sure where we're going here. There's obviously different motivations.
I think Trump was either trying to influence Latin American
elections or please some intermediary, some friend of his and
the former president of Honduras. But the killing is absolutely
(04:26):
unjustified under American law, and heg Seth has made it
worse by mocking it with this cartoon of a child's turtle,
something I had never heard of before, but of course
I did the research.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Franklin the turtle, Yeah, Franklin the turtle means a.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Child's cartoon, which heg Seth posted holding some sort of
a missile in his hand, blowing up a bote and saying,
wishless for Christmas. Come on, when the right mind for
this for children?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Now, of course, satire it may be, and it's a
sad reflection of the state of our political discourse in
this world that we communicate by virtue of memes. Left
does it the right, does it. We've devolved into this
one little tiny photograph, comical or not as one perceives it.
That's how people either advance or reject any political ideology.
(05:23):
And I think it's a sorry state of affairs for
political discourse. But grabbing a couple of words from your column,
which again is murder for Christmas, I'm fortunate enough to
get an advanced copy. It does come out at midnight
outside of a legally declared war in which US military
personnel are engaged in legally killing armed military personnel. I
don't need to read the whole sentence, but the salient
(05:44):
point outside of a llegally declared war. Now, I'm going
back to these six members of Congress who released that
video urging members to refuse quote unquote illegal orders. Now
they face a lot of BA backlash for that. Some
were threatening to court martial them. Whatever, we got the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, we can look to and
see exactly what it says. But every time any one
of the six who released that video were on the
(06:05):
talking Head program, they were asked specifically, can you name
an illegal order? Not one of them uttered a syllable.
Why didn't they go to the point that you make
in this article, which is you can't do that because
there's no authorized, constitutionally military declared war from Congress.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
I don't know why. I mean, they started a great debate,
but they didn't finish it. You're correct, they didn't back down,
but not a single one would articulate which orders are illegal.
It is clear as day that it is illegal to
kill an unarmed, non violent, non combatant. Nothing could be clearer.
(06:46):
That is a war crime. It's a war crime for
everybody involved, from the Secretary of Events down or whoever
pulled the trigger or pressed the button that dispatched the
weapon that destroyed the boat and the people on it. It's
not even a close call. Why they wouldn't articulate it
that way, I really, I really don't know. You know,
(07:08):
politicians are strange people. They're always trying to think two
steps ahead. They're always trying to think about compromise. They're
always trying to think about how can I scratch somebody
else's back so they'll scratch mine. This is not a
profession for people who are intellectually scrupulous.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Well, along those lines, could it be that they were
thinking two steps forward and realizing if they did articulate
that this is not a legally justifiable under the Constitution.
There's been no declaration of where you can't launch bombs
against those folks in the boats or on land because
their side of the political equation did it too. We've
got a history of presidents Republican and Democrat doing the
(07:50):
same damn thing.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
Correct, correct, the same as I mentioned in the piece,
that you have the same office of not the same
human beings because we're going back twenty years presumably, but
the same office. By the way, that office was once
headed by two very well known people, William Rehnquist, the
(08:12):
late Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia, the late Associate Justice.
This is an office in the Justice Department that has
the best and the brightest. They advise the rest of
the DOJ what the law is.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
But this is the.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Same office that issued a secret opinion telling George W.
Bush he could torture people, Barack Obama he could kill
two Americans, including a child, who were not engaged in
violence while they were in Yemen, and apparently has told
Trump that he can blow up these boats. I say
apparently because Trump will not reveal and the Attorney General
(08:47):
will not reveal the legal opinion for the rest of
us to scrutinize it. I can't imagine what kind of
law they cited, and I can't imagine why it's secret.
There are no secret laws. We're talking about a legal
argument here, we're not talking about classified information.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
So you get an advisory of painting because there is no,
I guess, definitive case law on this, you know, extra
judicial war waging that's been going on for so long?
Why and in what forum? Assuming the Democrats wanted to
stand up and say no, no, no, Moss, or even
a guy like Senator Rampaul, who was equally critical and
made the very point you made. We let a Narco,
(09:22):
the former president who'd been convicted of drug smuggling, out
on a pardon, and yet we're blowing him up real
time on folks who hadn't been through the due process.
But what forum, what tribunal, what congressional hearing? How does
one bring someone accountable if they choose to do so,
which clearly neither political party wanted to do over all
these years.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I would think that Pete heg Seth is not long
for his job, and I would think that whoever his
successor is would convene a court martial for Admiral Bradley
and everybody else along the chain of command, because the
Uniform Code of Military Justice says, not only may and
that kill a survivor, a shipwrecked survivor, you have a
(10:05):
duty to rescue him. You have to rescue the person
you just tried and failed to kill. That's the law.
This admiral knows the law. A petty sailor swabbing the
deck of an aircraft carrier knows the law. They are
told this the third day of basic training.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Going back to the initial fundamental problem we have here,
if there was even an authorization for use of military force,
which you and I agree probably not even constitutional itself,
but they've got those kind of things. If Congress issued
an authorization for use of military force against the drug dealers,
then we would effectively be at war with them, like
the war on terror that we've been waging over the
(10:47):
Middle East for so many decades. Then in an act
of war, which that effectively would be, you do kill
all the people who are fighting against you.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
You don't have to.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
I mean, we've seen people gunshots from two miles away
hidden Afghanistan terrorists, even though they weren't aiming a gun
at one of our military personnel because we were operating
in a military theater. Kill them all. Let God sort
it out. That's okay when you actually have a declaration
of war, right.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Well, believe it or not. If a person's surrendering, you
can't surrender. If a person's waving a white flag, you
can't kill them. If There's a very famous case during
World War Two where the Germans blew up a submarine
and the German commander ordered the sailors in the ocean
(11:35):
to be machine gunned. That commander was tried, convicted, and
executed by his own Nazi leadership for violating basic laws
of war. You can't kill survivors of your failure to
kill them. That's been a law of war for hundreds
of years. It is clearly in the Uniform Code of
Military Justice of the United States. Clearly, Admiral Bradley, there's
(12:00):
self a former Navy seal, knows what this law is.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
So how do you see this shaken out?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
There are a lot of Republicans, not just Rand Paul
and Thomas Massey. There are a lot of Republicans aggravated
by this. And this may be the last straw for
them with Donald Trump trashing the Constitution. But all they
can do is hold hearings and expose. They could impeach
(12:30):
Pete heg Seth. They can actually impeach the admiral if
they want, because he's got four stars and the fourth
star only came by confirmation from the Senate. They can't prosecute,
of course, because of the prohibition on bills of attainder,
and the Justice Department's not going to prosecute anybody. But
(12:53):
this is murder. There's no statue of limitations. This is
a war crime. There's no statute of limitations. These people
could be prosecuted in an international court. They could be
prosecuted in a federal court under a different administration. They
could be prosecuted in the court of the country from
which their victims came, if they could physically be brought there.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Well, But then politicians thinking two steps down the road
appreciate that. Well, you know, those Democrats may very well
have their person in office down the road, and they're
going to want as much flexibility along these lines as
other prior presidents of both political stripes have apparently had.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Barack Obama in his autobiography. This is a reprehensible phrase,
but he wrote it. I'm very good at.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Killing Wow, Judge Enna Palatano, Judging Freedom of the podcast.
We all like to listen to it. Who's on today,
judg Enna Paltano.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
I have our man in Siria kivork al Masian, who
tells us what's going on there. I have Phil GERALDI
I have Aaron mate Tomorrow. My heavy hitter is Colonel
Douglas McGregor and Professor John should be.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
A great, great discussion, as it always is, Judging Freedom
Judging in Apoloitown every Wednesday at eight thirty here in
the fifty five Caressey Morning Show. God bless you, sir.
Enjoy the holiday season. I know we'll be talking before Christmas,
but I just want to get you out of holiday
for the next Wednesday. Brian, take care, my friend. It's
eight forty three coming up in e forty four. Help
for Charity, Brian Ibil
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.