David French

But the bottom line is, he goes and he hears a legal briefing by a JAG captain and then immediately just tells his men to disregard.

If that is true, if that is actually what happened, that's a dangerous person.

That's an extremely dangerous person.

Yeah, that's a really good question.

I have not heard a coherent defense from anyone who I would consider serious and honest.

So, you know, people that I consider serious and honest are people who have differed from me.

Like, let's take, for example, my friend and former National Review colleague Andy McCarthy.

We do not see eye to eye on all the legal developments over the course of these last 10 years.

We have what I would call honest, good faith disputes about some of the legal developments over the last 10 years.

And Andy has taken a position, especially on the Russian investigation, that was more in line with Trump arguments than me.

Yeah.

But I never have questioned Andy's good faith.

I've never questioned his honesty, his approach to the law.

And he is one of the most vocal voices saying this is completely wrong.

And this is somebody who Trump has trumpeted, you know, when Andy has agreed with him, right?

This is the only rationale that makes sense.

Yeah.

The rationale that I have heard is that by liberating itself from the law of war and doubling down on cruelty and lethality, that the Trump administration is trying to deter drug smuggling.

That by taking off the gloves, it's going to deter drug smuggling.

You know, and he keeps doing this extremely dishonest thing where he's talking about the horrible toll of fentanyl.