Judging Freedom - Biden Informant LOST_ Homeless Vets kicked out of hotels

Episode Date: May 15, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, May 15th, 2023. It's about 3.30 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Here are your hot topics for today. I'm smiling because some of these are truly off the wall, but here we go. We'll start with the latest revelations, supposedly, from the National Guardsmen in Massachusetts who released national security documents about a month ago. I mean, the history of this case is just so fantastic. It's no surprise as to why Larry Johnson, one of our go-to former members of the intelligence community, says this is a controlled leak. It's still being controlled and it's still being leaked. One would think that like when edward snowden leaked his documents and when uh bradley slash chelsea manning uh leaked those documents to um um julian assange

uh there was a finite amount of documents leaked and we knew what they were but this stuff just keeps coming so one of the newest documents one leaked over the weekend and it's reported by the Washington Post. And again, I don't know if the Washington Post is actually getting this stuff from Teixeira's website or getting it from the CIA. But the Washington Post is claiming that Yevgeny Prokofiev, you remember he, we've run the clips of him many times. He's the Russian oligarch. He's a self-made billionaire who runs something called the Wagner Group. The Wagner Group was originally established by the old GRU. GRU is the initials for what used to be called Russian Military Intelligence. They have different initials and different names now, but basically the same people. So Prokofiev put some of his

money and the GRU put some of their money in and they got these special forces types and then they got prisoner types and then they got killer types and then they got veterans and they put together this group of soldiers of fortune and they fight where the Russian president wants them and they've been pretty effective and even ruthless fighters in Ukraine. OK, Prokosian himself in a famous selfie that he made, which we've run for you many times, ranted and raved and attacked by name the Russian defense minister and the Russian chief of general staff, the four starstar general and basically said what the blank is wrong with you guys and then he pointed over his shoulder where had the people who supplied us with this selfie not uh blurred it you would see dead bodies which uh mr progosian claimed were members of his wagner group and his argument was these people would be alive and would be replaced by Ukrainian dead bodies if you had given us the blankety-blank ammunition that we

blankety-blank need. You can fill in these blankety-blanks. You know what he said. I'm not going to repeat the word or the words here. It was a cry from the heart, but it was loud, it was forceful, it was personal, it was foul, demanding more ammunition. Supposedly, within the next two or three days, he got the ammunition that he needed. Now comes this report in the Washington Post over the weekend that among the documents that the government says Jack Deshera released, I have to keep saying the government says, because there's so many documents here, and they just keep coming and coming and coming. He's in jail. He's not releasing anything. That the argument of Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern and Phil Giraldi, our former intelligence community experts who are regulars on the show,

that this is a controlled leak and that Deshera was a dupe, a fool, a tool being used by someone way north of him in the government. That argument is more and more credible, and there's more and more evidence for it, as more of this stuff is leaked out while this kid is in jail. He shouldn't be in jail. Another story for another time. What did this document that the Washington Post reported on over the weekend say? It claims that Prokosian offered military plans to the Ukrainians, plans of where the Russian troops were, so that the Ukrainians could attack and kill them in return for the Ukrainians abandoning Bakhmut,

the city that they've been fighting over for three months, so that he, Prokosian, and his group, the Wagner group, could take credit for conquering Bakhmut. Bakhmut is nearly, totally destroyed. It is now just a Pyrrhic victory. It will just be a victory for the Russians about which they can boast. We killed a lot of Ukrainians. They really wanted to hold this town. We captured the town. What did they capture? Nothing. They captured rubble, but they succeeded in killing many, many, many Ukrainians. We did they capture? Nothing. They captured rubble, but they succeeded in killing many, many, many Ukrainians. We don't have a number. They actually created a trap by purporting to withdraw. So Ukrainian troops would go into Bakhmut, and then the Russians

surrounded it, and they killed the Ukrainians. This happened over and over again. Now back to this allegation. If Prokosian had offered to give Russian military plans, the most secret plans there are about where Russian troops are located and from where they plan to attack to Russia's mortal enemy, I would think that he'd be in a gulag in Siberia by now. So either he offered to do this as part of a Russian plot to give false plans, or he never offered to do this. And the CIA has persuaded the Washington Post, which has been a mouthpiece for the CIA for 60 years, six zero years. Tell you about that in a minute. Or the CIA persuaded the Washington Post to go with this story

and the Washington Post did so uncritically. You've heard Ray McGovern tell this story on air. The person who signed the CIA into existence wrote an op-ed saying the CIA has gone too far. It's not what we intended. It's not in the business of spying on foreign persons that now spies on Americans, and it even plots to overthrow the governments. It's time for the CIA to be chained down to its original charter. Signed, Harry S. Truman. In those days, the Washington Post had three daily editions.

So you'd see this three times. Oh, no, no. The CIA persuaded the Washington Post to take that op-ed written by the then living former president of the United States who signed the National Security Act that created the CIA into law in 1947. They persuaded the Washington Post to take President Truman's article down. That's the relationship, there you go, that the CIA and the Washington Post have had had so I don't know if this is true or not but I want you to know that it's out there these allegations that Progozhin made uh this offer I believe Larry Johnson will explain this to you in great detail when he's on with us uh in a few

days this is either entirely made up by the CIA or Prokosian did make this offer, but it was an offer to give them false information and false hope, which would result in their destruction. What is interesting, though, and I asked Ray McGovern about this this morning, is it common for adversaries who are combatants, who are actually fighting each other, to have some communication? And the answer is, yes, it is common that there probably is some high-level communication, believe it or not, going on between the Russian military intelligence community and the Ukraine military intelligence community, which also tells Larry Johnson and me and you, Prokosian is not stupid. He wouldn't do something like this unless it was part of a Kremlin-approved or even orchestrated plot, because the Russian

intelligence community would know that he had made this offer. And if he really was a traitor or was offering to deliver Russian soldiers into a death trap, the Russian military intelligence would know about it before his phone call was even over. Okay, last week, I don't know where this is going to go. He's still around. He made another tape today, but it was very mild, basically saying we've got to fight harder. Thanks for the ammunition. We're going to win this, but we've got to fight harder. More on this, of course, as we get it.

You'll recall a story we brought to you last week where Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican of Idaho, and Congressman Jim Comer, Republican of Kentucky, went on Fox News and elsewhere to say that they had a whistleblower who had an informant. I didn't realize at the time that there was an intermediary between the whistleblower and the FBI. So they have a whistleblower who had an informant, and the informant told the whistleblower and the FBI. So they have a whistleblower who had an informant, and the informant told the whistleblower that the informant had seen an FBI document showing that then Vice President Joseph Biden, the same Joe Biden that's now the President of the United States, accepted a ton of money for a bribe when he was Vice President of the United

States. Senator Grassley, whom I know and like, Congressman Comer, whom I don't know and have never met, but he's a very powerful guy in the House of Representatives. He's chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He can investigate anything he wants. He can subpoena anybody he wants. He can subpoena me if he wants. Both went on Fox News and made this allegation. And, of course, the allegation was covered by the New York Post. I don't know any other newspaper that covered it, but it was scurrilous for a few days, and then it died.

Over the weekend, Congressman Comer went back on Fox News and told my friend and former colleague, you're going to see this in a minute, Maria Bartiromo, the whistleblower can't find the informant. What? You just accused the president of the United States of bribery on the basis of what a whistleblower told you, on the basis of what an informant told the whistleblower, on the basis of what the informant says he or she saw in the hands of the FBI. And now the whistleblower can't find the informant? Right. My friend, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC had a field day with this. So first, Congressman Comer fessing up to Maria Bartiromo yesterday, and then Joe Scarborough having a field day with this this morning. Take a listen.

Did you just say that the whistleblower or the informant is now missing? Well, we're hopeful that we can find the informant. Remember, these informants are kind of in the spy business, so they don't make a habit of being seen a lot or being high profile or anything like that. So, comrade, you're telling me you lost another submarine? Come on, you lost the informant. The guy that you claimed gave you all this information that you built this entire charade on.

Do you in Durham, like you guys have tea parties every weekend to talk about how you can destroy your reputations and your career? All right, Joe was getting a little carried away, but he made his point. You're going to use the power of the Congress to subpoena somebody, and then you're going to learn from your investigators that that somebody knows somebody else who saw a document in somebody else's possession, and on the basis of that somebody, somebody who saw it, you're going to accuse the President of the United States of being bribed while he was Vice President. You're going to make that accusation on national television,

and now you can't find the informant who supposedly saw the document that is proof of the bribe. I don't blame Joe for getting a little bit humorous in a Scarborough-eaten way as he just did. Listen, Joe Scarborough and I have been friends for years going back to the Clinton impeachment when I was a young whippersnapper at Fox and spent a lot of time interviewing him. He was one of the impeachment prosecutors. He was a congressman from the Pensacola, Florida area after he left Congress and of course before he went to MSNBC. I don't know where this is going to end. If you're worried about Joe Biden getting indicted, even if this stuff happened, the way Congressman Comer's whistleblower's missing informant document can't find the document says it did, was more than five years ago, which is the statute of limitations on all of this. All right. You've all followed the saga of the homeless immigrants coming into

the United States. They are lawfully here. They have no place to live and no place to stay. But in this welfare state in which we live, government assumes the obligation of finding them a place to stay. And of course, your tax dollars pay for it. That's one of the reasons that we have a problem with migrants, because we give money away. We give money away from the haves to the have-nots. And the have-nots have learned, not the migrants because they can't vote yet, but the have-nots have learned that the public treasury has become a public trough. I'm quoting Jefferson and Hamilton now. The only thing they agreed on publicly, they hated each other. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

Quote, when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the people learn this, they will only send to Washington those who promise to bring home the biggest piece of the pie. The part about biggest piece of the pie is a paraphrase, but the public trough is an exact quote from Jefferson and Hamilton. And that's what we have today. And bringing home the biggest piece of the pie, the treasury becoming a public trough is available for anybody that comes here. Come here as an escapee from a repressive environment, let's say you're a traditional Roman Catholic in Venezuela where they lock up priests and bishops for saying the Latin mass, and you want to escape to the United States where you can practice Catholicism. You're a legitimate asylum seeker.

Let's say you belong to a group immutable with a characteristic of birth. You're a woman, you're a person of color, you're LGBTQ plus, whatever. And the government of this Latin American country is going to persecute you for those reasons. You can legally come here. The government makes an initial examination of whether or not you are in fact an asylum seeker, what repressive government, from what oppressive government you are escaping, and the government brings you, and the government lets you in. So far, so good. So far, yes, so far we are a country that takes in people who are escaping repression. Now comes the welfare state.

We take care of these people. What? Yeah, we give them places to live and we feed them. Why should we do that? If they're willing to take the chance here, they should be on their own. Somebody knocks on my front door and wants to mow my lawn, wants to mow your lawn for the minimum wage, you'll pay them. Of course, you'll get in trouble with the feds for hiring a person who doesn't have working papers, but maybe they can get them because they are here legally if they are escaping repression. What burns me up is that your tax dollars and mine are paying for them. Okay, that's the background. That's the backstory here. What happened over the

weekend? Governor Abbott of Texas puts these people, not all of them, but hundreds, even thousands of them, 65,000 so far, in buses and sends the buses to New York. Are they kidnapped? They give them $20 gift certificates at McDonald's. The poor people are so hungry, they take the gift certificates. They use some of the food immediately. They eat some on the bus. They use some of the gift certificates when they arrive in New York. They get in New York. New York puts them in hotels. The city pays for it. Now the city of New York is shipping them to the suburbs. They're shipping them to an area called Rockland County and Orange County.

If you know the geography, Rockland County and Orange County are immediately north of New Jersey. It's New York State, but it's immediately north of New Jersey. And because the city of New York is paying for the migrants to stay in hotels, and because the city of New York is paying the hotels more than the hotels charge the public, the public that has been using the hotels has been booted out. So the Veterans Administration puts homeless veterans in there, but the city of New York pays more than the Veterans Department does. So the veterans are booted out. The City of New York pays more for ballrooms to put bunk beds in and cots for sleeping than do people who pay to rent the ballrooms for weddings.

So they're booted out. So last minute, these hotels in Rockland and Orange County, New York, are being emptied by the owners of the hotels, people who've planned their weddings. Imagine your wedding day is being disrupted by this. It's not the fault of the migrants. It's the fault of the government that has become a public trough, kicking these people out of the hotels because the government pays more. You blame the hotels, they want to make more money. They're violating their contract with the Veterans Department. They're violating their contract with these young couples that are

about to get married. I hope somebody takes us to court. I have friends who are judges in these counties. I'd be happy to testify as an expert witness, but that's the mess that these counties are in now. As we speak, the buses are traveling from New York City to the suburban counties. The hotels are being emptied and the money, the cash is being wired from the treasury of the city of New York, much of which comes from the federal government, much of which is borrowed because the feds are bankrupt, that money is being wired into the coffer of the owners of those hotels. All right. A couple of weeks ago, we all learned from Michael Morrell. Michael Morrell was the acting director of the CIA in the latter part of the Obama years and the earliest part of the Trump

years before President Trump appointed his own director. Michael Morrell, I believe now works for either CNN or MSNBC. I found him to be a credible guy. I interviewed him many times when I was at a fall. Mike Morrell revealed that he put together a letter signed by 51 former intelligence, either agents or high level management types like Jim Clapper, the director of national intelligence in the Obama years, the one who lied under oath when he denied to Senator Wyden that we are all being spied on by the NSA, and Jack Brennan, who was the head of the CIA in the Obama years, they signed this letter along with others. I have a good friend who was the former director or the former Secretary of Homeland Security who refused to sign the letter. The 51 former people in the intel community signed this letter. The letter said, the Hunter Biden laptop story has all the earmarks of Russian misinformation. Don't believe it. The letter came out two weeks before

the election. Did it push the election in Joe Biden's direction? Well, that was its intent. Michael Morrell says now, we all signed this letter using our credibility as professionals in the intelligence community. It was all politics. It was all politics. None of us knew whether or not the Hunter Biden laptop was real. None of us had any intel as to whether it was Russian disinformation. We all signed this because we liked Joe Biden. We hated Donald Trump. We wanted Joe Biden to win. All right, well, this infuriates Republicans, infuriates you, it infuriates me. When people in the government use their government credibility for some political purpose, they should have been more open and above board about

it. And the more intellectually honest ones, like my friend, I'm not mentioning his name, and not signed it. Jack Brennan gave a four-hour deposition in secret to the House Judiciary Committee, and James Clapper is scheduled to do the same on Wednesday, dying to hear what they have to say. And finally, as if things weren't bad enough, one of these science magazines just revealed that the government can harvest your DNA from thin air, from thin air. Sneeze, and the person comes by at the right time with the right piece of equipment and they can harvest your DNA. And that DNA will tell the government everything it needs to know about you. Can it be used in law enforcement? If the government is honest

and admits that it captured DNA through some science fiction means and without a search warrant, it cannot use it. If the government is dishonest and lies to the court about how it got the DNA, it'll get away with it. Do you trust the government to tell the truth? More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.