Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: The Costs of Shunning Diplomacy.

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

Aaron Maté: The Costs of Shunning Diplomacy.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, January 30th, 2025. Aaron Maté joins us now. Excuse my froggy voice, Aaron. It's a pleasure. Welcome here. Is the real objection on the Senate Intelligence Committee to Tulsi Gabbard that she is not in favor of politicizing intel? That seems to be the message. People who oppose Tulsi Gabbard's nomination have made a really big issue about her views on Syria, which they claim is outsi Gabbard lead the U.S. intelligence community when she has questioned U.S. intelligence judgments about Syria? It's based on a false premise. First of all, there's nothing wrong with questioning intelligence, as we learned from the Iraq war. So I think it's healthy to have someone in the position who is skeptical of claims that lead us to war. And Tulsi Gabbard, having been to war, has ample reasons to want to question the claims that send soldiers off to die and to kill. But in the case of Syria,

there's a misnomer that Tulsi Gabbard has questioned U.S. intelligence assessments, because in fact, every time the U.S. had tried to go to war in Syria based on allegations that the Syrian government committed chemical weapons allegations, U.S. intelligence community has never put out a consensus assessment that makes the case. And that's because I think we know now from all the countervailing evidence, including the OPCW whistleblowers, the evidence wasn't there. So what the White House under both Obama and Trump did, rather than release declassified intelligence assessments, they released press releases written by political officials in the

White House, not intelligence professionals. And this began in 2013, the most notorious and deadliest use of chemical weapons in Syria, Ghouta, August 2013. We know now what happened. James Clapper, who Tulsi Gabbard is now vying to succeed, he was then the director of national intelligence, he went to Obama and said, the case against Assad is not a slam dunk. And that was a deliberate reference by Clapper to the term used by George Tenet to vouch for the intelligence that took the U.S. to war in Iraq, that this is a slam dunk case. When you say the case against him, you mean the argument that he used chemical weapons on his own people? Correct. And James Clapper was saying that this is an Iraq WMD-esque

allegation, that you're going to take the U.S. to war in Syria based on a case that is not a slam dunk, a.k.a. a case that is very much akin to the phony intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. Right. So in that respect, Tulsi Gabbard, in

questioning these claims by the U.S. government, is fully in line with her predecessor, James Clapper. And my point there is simply that to claim that Tulsi Gabbard has questioned U.S. intelligence is not accurate because U.S. intelligence has never put out a formal assessment, which is unusual, making the case against a Syrian government. Okay, but even if she did question U.S. intelligence, that's a good and healthy thing to have done. Absolutely. As we learned from- Mark Warner, Senator Warner, is looking for a puppet. He's looking for somebody who will do what the deep state tells her to do rather than comply with her as their boss. Exactly right. And again, going back to James Clapper, in his memoir,

he has a quote that Ray McGovern loves to cite because it is very, very telling. Clapper says that in Iraq, basically, we were tasked with looking for things. I'll square this. I'll quote this for you. Clapper says that the blame in Iraq belongs, quote, squarely on the shoulders of the administration members who are pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in Iraq and on the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't really there, unquote. So Clapper is admitting he committed fraud to serve the administration. So do we want someone like James Clapper was back then during the Iraq WMD hoax? By the way, did Clapper ever admit that he committed perjury when he was asked if the United States government was spying on 100 million

people, which he had already testified to in secret? So Senator Wyden knew exactly what the truthful answer was, and he knew that Clapper had lied to him. You remember this. Yeah, I do. Of course, Clapper's never admitted to perjury. He gave a weaselly answer as to why he claims he didn't really mislead Congress. But everybody knows he did, and we know that because of Edward Snowden. And it's, you know, just going back to Tulsi Gabbard today at her hearing, which is ongoing, they've really tried to make an issue out of the fact that she called for pardoning Edward Snowden. They demanded multiple times that she answer whether she thinks Edward Snowden is a traitor. And Tulsi Gabbard declined to answer that. But what she did say is that, yes, he broke the law, but he also exposed illegal mass surveillance.

And the senators there seemed very unnerved that she had dared to call for Edward Snowden, even though he revealed illegal activity, as U.S. courts have confirmed. I have stated this in public before, but in the same conversation that I had with President Trump at the tail end of his first presidency when I asked him about the JFK files, I also said, you also promised to pardon Snowden and Assange. And he said said consider it done and then of course the same people that talked him out of releasing the JFK files probably Mike Pompeo also talked him uh out of uh pardoning um Snowden uh and and Assange this is hardly a novel idea that she is asking for. Snowden had two oaths. One was fidelity to his bosses yeah yes before we get to the other things i want to talk to you about um

kash patel another person who if confirmed would disrupt the settled expectations of the longtime serving agents, in this case, the FBI. What are your thoughts on him? Well, one thing I was very curious about going into Kash Patel's confirmation hearing today was whether or not Democrats would challenge him over what was for them the top issue of Trump's first presidency, the allegation that Trump conspired with Russia and that Russia waged a sweeping interference campaign to elect Trump. Kash Patel was critical to exposing that this was a scam through his work on the House Intelligence Committee. Now, they've previously tried to discredit him for challenging Russiagate. And there's been so many articles recently in the

New York Times written by stenographers of the FBI saying that Kash Patel was wrong. So I was wondering, given the Democrats made this their top issue and are so sensitive about the issue, how can you dare challenge the assessment that Russia interfered in our democracy and that there may have been collusion with Trump, whether they would press Kash Patel over the fact that he challenged this? And from my understanding, they have not at all. And to me, that is politically smart because Russiagate for them was such a disaster. And it shows to me it's more evidence that Kash Patel was right. And on that front, going back to Tulsi Gabbard, there's a very revealing moment in her hearing today when Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, tried to challenge her over her skepticism of chemical weapons allegations lodged against the Syrian government. And for the first time in a U.S. government setting, Tulsi Gabbard gave a mention, an acknowledgement of the story that is censored across the U.S. media, across

the U.S. government, and that is of the brave OPCW whistleblowers who challenged the cover-up of their investigation in Douma. Their actual findings found no evidence to support the Trump administration's, the initial first Trump administration's claims that the Syrian government committed a chemical attack in Douma. Their findings were censored. There's a documented cover-up. It's exposed in a series of leaks that I've reported on. And Tulsi Gabbard mentioned these OPCW whistleblowers

and said that they should be listened to. That's the first time that's ever been said in a U.S. government setting. And it's very, very important. That's a first time that's ever been said In a US government setting And it's very very important It's a very important precedent And even more telling was Mark Kelly Didn't have a thing to say in a response He did not try to rebut her at all That reflects an awareness

That the OPCW whistleblowers are right Because if they were wrong what you would say is They have no credibility, they're wrong I doubt that he knew what he was talking about Right now I am speaking to the world's expert authority on this. You have debunked the allegation that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people more than anybody else. You know more about this than anybody else I know or know of. So the praise you have given to her for this is well regarded, well deserved, well grounded,

and I hope it resonates with her. Look, she and Patel, let's say they get confirmed, they have to change culture. A whole generation of FBI agents has come of age since 9-11 being taught, get the evidence first, worry about the Fourth Amendment later. They have literally been taught that. And the same thing on the other side, forget about FISA, it's just a fig leaf. Do what you have to. Capture it all. Spy on everybody. Gather everything. Those two cultures have to change radically. Neither of them is going to be able to do it overnight. Oh, absolutely. I agree. It's impossible or very difficult to reform an institution even over many years, let alone just in one term, if that's all Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard serve for. But look, so there are limitations and there are political pressures on them.

Tulsi Gabbard has already changed her views on certain key issues. I really reject everything she says now about Israel-Palestine. She smeared protesters in the U.S. Rush changed their mind on Section 702, which allows Martin Luther to spine it. She was against that her entire career in Congress. Sure.

At the same time, though, I'm not going to hold them to any higher standard than I would any other public official. The fact is Washington's a very corrupt, dirty place. People have to sell out, take positions, abandon previous positions. Everyone's guilty of that. And I have no doubt they'll do that.

Look, for Kash Patel, what is he going to do if Trump tries to, despite his claims about supporting free speech, tries to censor people who support Palestine? And so despite the fact that I really appreciate all of Kash Patel's work exposing intelligence community overreach and abuses in Russiagate, I'll be just as critical for him if he executes Trump's demands there. And same with Tulsi Gabbard.

So no one's above criticism. At the same time, I think the courage that Tulsi Gabbard has shown throughout her political career, she called out the Democratic Party when she was a member for rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders. She took a very bright position on Syria, opposing the regime change war, pointing out that the insurgency was dominated by Al Qaeda. She's now been totally vindicated by the fact that the current leader of Syria is the former leader of Al Qaeda in Syria and a former deputy leader of ISIS. No one tries to challenge her on that anymore because it's so embarrassing that we supported an al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency. She called for pardoning Edward Snowden, and no matter how many positions she abandons now, I will never not appreciate the brave stances that she took in the past. Earlier today, I was on Dimitri Syme's seniors show, The Great Game in Moscow, and he asked me an interesting

question that I'm now going to put to you. Why did the United States under Biden shun all meaningful diplomacy with Russia? There was a very revealing moment related to that in today's hearing with Tulsi Gabbard where Senator Michael Bennett, he yelled at Tulsi Gabbard. He literally yelled because Tulsi Gabbard once said that the Biden administration should have addressed, quote, Russia's legitimate security concerns. And Michael Bennett said, this is Russian propaganda. How dare you say this? He was livid. Well, if that's Russian propaganda, then top NATO and U.S. officials have spread Russian propaganda as well because Jens Stoltenberg, until recently the chief of NATO, said that Russia, quote, went to war to prevent more NATO on Russia's borders. Charles Kupchan, who served as a senior official under

Obama, was on Obama's national security advisor to Obama. He said, quote, Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000 mile plus border with Ukraine. So despite Michael Bennett's hysterical beliefs that this is all Russian propaganda, it's actually factual. And why they would have shunned all these opportunities to address Russia's concerns is simply they see Russia as a geopolitical adversary that needs to be destroyed. That's been a long-term goal. And that's why rather than letting Ukraine live in peace, they wanted to use Ukraine to smash Russia. That's why they sabotaged the Minsk Accords.

That's why they refused to seriously negotiate with Russia right before Russia invaded. And that's why they sabotaged the peace agreement that Zelensky's own government came very close to reaching with Russia right after Russia invaded, simply because they saw an opportunity to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. And, you know, there's a really interesting quote about this. Eric Green, who served as a top official for Russia on Biden's National Security Council, he recently spoke to Time magazine, sort of giving a retrospective of the Biden administration's record in Ukraine. And this is what he said, quote, it's unfortunately the kind of success where you don't feel great about it because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it's ultimately going to land. So on the one hand, he's calling U.S. policy in Ukraine a success while also acknowledging that this quote-unquote

success has caused massive suffering in Ukraine and success while also acknowledging that this quote-unquote success has caused massive suffering in Ukraine and uncertainty about its future, meaning uncertainty about its survival as a country. And that's US policy in a nutshell. US success came at the price of Ukraine's future. Do we know if Secretary of State Rubio has even

spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov in the past week that he's been in office? We don't know. And I doubt they have. Trump was talking about meeting with Putin quickly, but that hasn't happened yet. There's been some discussions about setting it up. But so far, Trump's given mixed signals. He said that he's going to sanction and put tariffs on Russia unless it ends the war. He's also been critical of Zelensky. So I think Trump is still figuring out exactly what he wants to do. Well, I think he's trying to figure it out as well. Is the Biden pipeline still open as far as we know it is? I would think if it's been shut, talking about the military equipment and

ammunition and cash going to Zelensky, if it's been shut, we would hear from Zelensky, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be the case? The military pipeline is still open, but the question will be once it runs out, will Trump go before Congress as Biden did multiple times and ask for tens of millions of dollars? I don't think so. If he does, it would be 180 degrees from what he promised many, many times during the campaign. I don't think he will. But, you know, funnily enough, he has shut down some USAID programs around the world, some foreign funding, foreign aid.

And of course, this has been detrimental to, I think, really important programs, funding health initiatives, giving people medical care around the world. So I think I can't support that. But in Ukraine, funnily enough, one of the revelations that have emerged from Trump cutting off some funding for Ukraine through entities like USAID is that a lot of people in Ukraine that are described as independent journalists have been funded by the U.S. government. So Ukrainian independent journalists are actually working for the U.S. government. That's one revelation. No, no surprise. Here's an interesting uh conversation it's a it's a clip of president putin in the back seat of a limo uh being

interviewed by a russian news reporter uh saying that the war should never have started and if it hadn't have been for boris johnson we would have had peace sonia cut number 12. there were some proposals by ukraine and they wanted to have a personal meeting between the two presidents and i agreed even to that to have a personal meeting with the Ukrainian president. But all of a sudden, we got a message from Kim that they had to seek advice from their allies. So they put it on pause for a week. So they sought advice. There was Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, who came to Ukraine.

And it was probably at the bidding of the former US administration, Mr. Biden, they convinced Ukrainians to continue this war. No one is hiding this, and Ukrainian officials themselves and I'm talking about high-ranking officials admitted so in their public statements and the UK leadership has not also made any secret out of it they refused to abide by this agreement to sign this agreement and decided to continue this war and they told us we will be fighting until the last ukrainian until either you or we win they decided not to sign a peace treaty he goes on to say that he can't have negotiations with or accept the signature of Vladimir Zelensky because he has no legal

authority under Ukrainian law and under Ukrainian constitution and under international law. And in my view, he's 100% correct. Well, on that latter point, I'm not going to take a position on that. To me, that's up to Ukrainians. If Ukrainians see Zelensky as the president, then he's their president. That's not for me to say. But on everything else, what Putin was talking about, Boris Johnson coming to Ukraine and saying, don't sign the deal. We're not going to back you up. The crucial thing is that Ukraine, to reach a peace deal with Russia, it wanted security guarantees from its Western partners. That was its main ask.

The Western partners said, no, we're not going to back you up. So it's just the peak of cynicism for Biden to say, we're going to have a war happen because we want to leave the door open for Ukraine to join NATO. And then when Ukraine says, to reach a peace deal to end this awful war, we just want a security guarantee from you, not under NATO, but bilaterally. And Biden says, no. So we're going to risk a war with Russia and fuel a war with Russia over an eventual promise of a NATO membership that would give Ukraine security guarantees. When Ukraine, out of its own agency, asked for security guarantees to end a war, we're going to say no and say we're not going to back you up. Because, again, as Putin said there and as Lindsey Graham openly bragged about, they wanted to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

It would have right an absolute disaster uh gilbert doctorow has told us earlier today and i gathered this from my q a with the um folks at the great game that the kremlin believes the war is effectively over does the state department believe that the war is effect the American State Department believe that the war is effectively over the the Victorian Newland mentality? I know she's not there anymore. But that mentality that caused all this, did they recognize that the war is all but over? Well, under the Biden administration, the Pentagon recognized that the war was over. That's why General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest military officer, in the fall of 2022 said,

this is as far as Ukraine can go militarily. They should consolidate their gains at the negotiating table, broker an end to this war with Russia. That was the fall of 2022. Who led the charge against Milley? Our genius Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who the New York Times recently called the Secretary of War. More accurate would be Max Blumenthal's term, Secretary of Genocide. But it's true he also was a Secretary of War because he didn't care about diplomacy, refused to even talk to Sergei Lavrov. And he successfully convinced Biden to ignore Mark Milley, not as if Biden needed much convincing, to ignore Mark Milley's call for diplomacy and to continue the war. What Marco Rubio thinks now we'll find out soon, but you know, one thing they could do if

they really were sincere about peace and termination, they could declassify the documents about what the U S was doing. For example, back when Boris Johnson was going over and telling Zelensky not to broker a deal, I think documents would show that the U.S. was in on that. Victoria Nuland admitted as much when she said that the U.S. advised Zelensky not to accept that deal because she said that peace deal would have left Ukraine neutered as a military force, by which she meant Ukraine would have lost its utility to the U.S. as a NATO proxy on Russia's borders. So to avoid Ukraine being neutered militarily, Victoria Nuland and her colleagues decided to let Ukraine be destroyed as a country. Aaron, thank you very much, my dear friend. Much appreciated. We covered great ground. Your

insight on Tulsi Gabbard is extraordinary. I commend you for it. And though I, too, disagree with her on many things, she's far better, far better than any of her predecessors who ever held that job. Judge, great to always talk to you. Okay. All the best, my friend. We'll see you again soon. See you, sir. Thank you. Colonel Larry Wilkerson at three o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer, and at four o'clock,

midnight in Moscow, Pepe Escobar. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.