Judging Freedom - CIA and Ukraine - Ray McGovern

Episode Date: March 6, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, March 6, 2023. It's about 4.30 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Our guest today is Ray McGovern, a person whose work and life I have admired for many years, and it's a thrill for me to be with him and to interview him. Ray spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, four of them from 1981 to 1985 as the principal preparer and deliverer of the president's daily briefing. That, of course, was the Ronald Reagan years, and his briefings, as I understand it, he'll explain it in a few minutes, were delivered to Reagan's senior most people. Ray's views are decidedly different from those of our other former career CIA analyst who spends time with us, Jack Devine, and those of us whose

views are more aligned, those of you whose views are more aligned with mine than with Jack's, will enjoy the conversation that's coming. Ray, it's a pleasure. Thank you for your time. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. So tell us a little bit about what happened in Ukraine in 2017 and the role, if any, that the CIA played in toppling the freely elected, relatively neutral government. Well, we were talking about the coup d'etat in Kiev. It was preceded six months earlier, most people forget this, by the Halcyon Day of U.S.-Russian relations. In a word, Putin pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. Obama didn't want to make an open war on Syria. Putin made it unnecessary by getting the Syrians to destroy all their chemical weapons under UN supervision on a US ship specifically outfitted for such

destruction. And suffice it to say that Putin waxed eloquent in an op-ed in the New York Times on the 12th of September 2013 about the growing trust not only between him and the president, but between our two countries. He also said, I have one problem. This is one paragraph at the end. This business about being exceptional. On that, I don't agree with President Obama. I think there are big countries, small countries, countries closer to democracy. But when the Lord looks down on all these countries, he sees them as all equal. Now, I was told at the time he penned that last paragraph himself,

confirmation came later. Now, why do I mention that? Well, that was six months before the other guys, the people who hate Russia and wanted to make sure that Russia was always our enemy, overturned the government in Kiev. It was the most, it was the most placid coup, coup d'etat in the history of mankind because it was recorded two and a half minutes, two and a half weeks before on YouTube. What do you mean it was recorded two and a half weeks before on YouTube? On the 4th of February, 2014. So we're talking now six months after this cooperation between Russia and the US. And six months after Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. That's right, yeah.

So the 4th of February, YouTube ran an intercepted conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State at the time, Victoria Nuland, and our ambassador in Kiev. Now, was this authentic? Well, sure as hell it was, because at one point, as the coup was being plotted and the coup leaders named and who would take over the government in Kiev, the ambassador, Jeffrey Pyatt, said, but Deputy Secretary of State Nuland, you know, the EU is not going to like this.

Nuland says, F, you know, the last three. Right, right, right, right. F the EU. Now, why do I say that's important? Because three days later, she apologized. She said, I didn't mean to say, I'm sorry, I lost my head. She didn't apologize for the coup, but for the profanity. And so that, you know, it's just another reason to accept this as valid.

Even the BBC said it was valid. So long story short, that's when the current war between the U.S. and Russia started. That's when the U.S. violated big time its earlier promise not to move NATO one inch to the east. That's when they defied what Sergei Lavrov, back in 2008, told our ambassador. Now, our ambassador happened to be William Burns. Okay. Now, he's head of the CIA. Who today is the head of the CIA. So, what did he say to Burns?

He called him in on the 1st of February and he said, Mr. Burns, do you know what nyet means? Well, I think so. Nyet means nyet. That's a red line. A red line. No Ukraine membership for NATO. 1st of February 2008, 3rd of April 2008, declaration by NATO at the Bucharest Summit, Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO, period, end quote. So why do I mention that? It's because Burns was a pretty honest ambassador.

He even said to Condoleezza Rice, look, you know, the Russians are really, really worried about this strategically. And, you know, the Russians have a reason to worry about what happens right on their near abroad, on their border. Ambassadors don't usually do that. Well, of course, he was given the back of the hand from Dick Cheney, who was running things then, Condoleezza Rice. And they went ahead with this thing. So what now? Well, now we have Bill Burns acting like the quintessential bureaucrat. Now he's forgotten all that.

He's head of the CIA, and he says this invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, unprovoked, unprovoked. Well, he was there, as you say, when the coup was being plotted and was uncomfortable with it. Well, he may say that now. All I know about his feelings when he reported factually and to his credit, he reported it straight saying, look, this is a red line for the Russians. And, you know, and they have reason to consider it a red line. He further stated that there'd probably be a civil war and Russia will have to ask himself ask themselves whether they would

have to invade so he called it he called it straight he was a good ambassador but once you get into Washington you're part of the team the head of the head of intelligence should never feel he's part of the team he's got to tell it straight's not going to, you shouldn't be a propagandist for the official line. And that's what Bill Burns has become at when he says this was unprovoked. He knows damn well it was very provoked. Does the CIA lie? Look, I don't have to, you don't have to ask McGovern about this. Look, Mike Pompeo was really, really proud of him.

We cheat, we lie, we have courses. It's the American way. Huh? I mean, Pompeo went to West Point. Apparently, he got all A's or something. But he's just the latest manifestation. You can get all A's or something, but he's just the latest manifestation. He can get all A's and still flunk life, okay?

Let me run a clip from one of your former colleagues. I understand the two of you don't know each other and never worked together. Jack Devine, like you, a career in the CAA. Jack is a regular on the show. I hope you'll become a regular on the show as well,

since I have so much admiration for your intellectual honesty. Now, this clip we're going to run is just about 15 minutes old. I realize that this show is live. It's also streaming. People will see it at different times and in a different order. But here's Jack on CIA Lying just a few minutes ago, Ray. According to Mike Pompeo, the former director, their job is to steal secrets and lie about it.

We'll talk about that. Let me, you put a marker down. Let me respond to that one. Go ahead. That is true outside of the U.S. and outside of the U.S. judicial system. I had a lawyer, a professional lawyer at my elbow for the last 15 years of my career, and I wasn't unique. So you can lie in certain places, but you can't lie in others.

I guess you don't want to lie under oath because there could be consequences to that when another administration comes in. But no CIA man or woman, being honest, would possibly say that they don't lie. Well, Judge, the reality is there are two CIAs. The one that President Truman set up after the war to give him the straight scoop on things, not to be subservient to the State Department or to the Pentagon, to tell him what he said, untreated intelligence, okay? Right. I had the privilege to work in that atmosphere. That was the analysis division, okay? On Russia, we were able to tell it like it was. What's the other CIA, right?

It's the operations division. They get all the money, all the attention. Now, that was an accident of history because when the operatives came back from the war, the OSS operatives, you know, they were appropriately applauded because it's incredible, courageous things. But what they asked was, well, you want us to stay around? I mean, you got work for us? So the balloon was up and I said, well, of course the Russians are doing all kinds of crazy things, assassinating people, overthrowing. We got to be able to do that too. And so they worked into this National Security Act of 1947. The director of the CIA shall perform such other functions and duties as the president shall from time to time direct. Period.

End quote. So if they have to lie, if they have to blow up the pipelines, they'll do it. And, you know, if the president directs it, it's all supposedly legal. Well, that's a private army. That's a private gaggle of saboteurs. That's private torture chambers. That's whatever the president wants. Look at what Bush authorized.

You could end up torturing people. I mean, I know that's a stretch. You could end up having a war of aggression against a country that couldn't defend itself like Iraq. about your time with Reagan's people and how you decided what data to share with the people closest to the president. Do you tell the president what you think he wants to hear, or do you tell him what the analyzed raw data is revealing, whether it's pleasing to his ears or not? Whatever you did, you did for four years, so you must have done it successfully. Well, there was a measure of success to it. You know, this sounds corny,

but we're in the business of telling the truth, to the degree we could get at it. It was a really interesting time because Mikhail Gorbachev came into the forefront, and the question was, is this guy the real deal? Look what he's doing. He's criticizing the parties, removing people. Is he the real deal? Now, the people that I worked with, this is an accident of history, I happened to be in that specific place briefing these fakes.

These people said, look, he's the real deal. And I looked at stuff, it looks like the real deal. My boss, Bill Casey and Bobby Gates, no, he's just a more clever commie. He's a clever commie. Don't be taken in. And that's what they told Reagan. But George Shultz, who developed the gradual empathy with not only Mikhail Gorbachev, but a good relationship with Reagan, he and Vice President Bush, all of these people were among the people I briefed every other morning. They prevailed. And when Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev. There was electricity there. And God, when I remember it, in Reykjavik,

Gorbachev said, look, let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. And Reagan went back to his coterie and said, he seems sincere. He talks about verification. What do you think? And they told him, but Mr. Reagan, Mr. President, you wouldn't be able to get your foolproof strategic defense initiative where we could put anti-ballistic missiles all around the country and nothing could get through. It was a sham for the word go. It was to give work to these very, very rich and very fruitful and domineering defense-related companies. It never would work, but Reagan had the realist fancy that, well,

maybe it could work. So he was persuaded to say, no, no, Michael, that's too far. We want to do this anti-ballistic missile system. Now, of course, we've sunk trillions of money in that. Who ran the CIA? Who was your boss in the years when you were briefing George Shultz and George H.W. Bush every other day? Well. And if you tell me it was Bob Gates, I'm aware of the animosity between you and Gates.

Well, Gates used to work for me. In the 70s, he worked for me as one of my analysts in the Soviet foreign policy branch. His transparent sniffing to move up was a disruptive influence in the branch. And in those days, young first-line manager, I wrote it down in this report, and I'm very proud I did. Anyhow, Gates was two levels ahead of me. I had a fellow who had unparalleled integrity right over me. His name was Chuck Peters. The vice president and all the people, national security officials, treasured Chuck Peters beyond all the other people. And so when Gates or even Casey said, you know, let's get rid of McGovern, Chuck Peters says, okay, you explain to Vice President Bush why we have to get rid of McGovern.

I'm not going to get rid of him. He's doing a good job. So I survived for four years. I was a Soviet specialist. They knew that. And they listened to me. And they listened to Secretary Shultz, who I have great admiration for. So it was a kind of a free-for-all there.

But I was able, in that position, one-on-one. Now, I have to say this, that when Reagan got to Washington, he said, I want to sleep in. So we rarely got to see Reagan himself on a one-to-one briefing, but we saw my itinerary was Secretary Shultz, Secretary Weinberger, the Vice President of the United States, National Security Advisor. And then later we said the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs really should get this treatment. So Reagan said, okay. So those are the people we briefed. And of course, they met with Ronald Reagan when he woke up more, you know, after he woke up at 1130. So they all knew who had been briefed on what they had been briefed.

And it was sort of the apex of the intelligence cycle because then we would be told what else they need. We would go back to headquarters and say, this is what we have to report today or this week. The requirements would go out to collect this stuff. If it wasn't already collected, it would be prepared. And the next day or the next week, we will be able to be responsive to those. Let me ask you about today. Is it your view that President Biden receives receives truthful and accurate reports from CIA or that there is spin in there designed to please

him and reinforce his preconceived notions about the war in Ukraine. Chris, come on. He's being very poorly served. I mentioned Bill Burns, who knows, like few other people, how what Putin did was provoked. He knows why it was provoked. And here he's out there being a propagandist, rather than advising the president, look, this is what happened. This is how Putin feels about it. Now, both Burns and his titular supervisor, April Haynes, have said, well, he said a month or so ago, it's going to be a pretty quiet winter. And in the spring, in the spring, there'll be a counter offensive by the Ukrainians. And we're not sure. But April Haynes, I'm really hopeful that the Ukrainians will win, okay? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says Russia's lost, Russia's lost, Russia's lost.

Well, my God, what universe are they coming from? What's going to happen, as Doug McGregor has said many times, the Russians are now mercilessly going forward, creeping forward. And when they get out of Mahout, that place there where they're kind of fighting over since the summer, they're going to go all the way to the Dnieper River. Now, that will be the time when U.S. officials have to decide what to do. Is it time to deal now? And there's a straw in the wind that Putin put out there in late

October saying, look, Adesa could be a yablok razdora, which means an apple of discord. Remember your mythology? Remember the Trojan War? For the fairest. Right, you got it.

We nicknamed one of my sisters-in-law Iris, the goddess of discord. You didn't tell her that, I hope. Wow, she's now a wonderful lady. This is when she was younger. Anyhow, this is really a broad hint. I'll tell you what happened. In a long Q&A after a 45-minute speech, the Q&A went on for three more hours, and Putin's answering all these questions, and one I think was a planted question, Judge. This fellow says, now, President Putin, I'm thinking of traveling to Odessa, and I'm wondering, should I get a Ukrainian visa or should I get a Russian visa?

So Putin sort of straight faces it, and he says, well, Odessa is a beautiful, beautiful, it is indeed a beautiful city. Yeah, it could be a yabloka, a razdora, or it could be a yabloka resdora. Or it could be a way of working out things, getting together and watching the other side and getting together and working out serious differences. Whoa.

Did you see that in any major publication? No. News to most people? You have to hang around and listen to what Joe says, all right? If you had been Secretary Blinken last week in Mumbai, India, and had 10 minutes with Foreign Minister Lavrov, would you have said to him, hey, Sergey, let's talk? Or would you have said,

we're going to give the Ukrainians whatever it needs for as long as it takes? Well, Judge, that's why I'm glad I never worked for the State Department. The State Department tells lies, too. They're paid to tell lies. Blinken is such a troglodyte that he may believe all this stuff that he's spouting out there, but he is the problem.

What's his name? Jake Sullivan. It's the Biden and Blinken Sullivan. And Mrs. Newland, who makes Lindsey Graham sound like Bernie Sanders. Sounds like a crooked law firm, like Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. Anyhow, you know, what Blinken was saying is what he thinks is the right thing for the U.S. to do, and he's got the approval of

the president, kind of the nod, and it's stupid. And the worst stupidity comes when Blinken and Sullivan take on the Chinese two years ago, almost to the day, and say, look, no ball game in town. We young guys, we have this rules-based international order. You're going to have to sort of follow it, you know. And it's just like the British overlords in the 19th century, the 20th century, you know. Don't these guys realize that China has five millennia, you know, they're used to this stuff. So that was the first key. These guys are, oh gosh, they're sophomores, they're elitists, and they're typically

exceptional in all respects. It's precisely the kind of exceptionalism that Putin was talking about in saying, look, I really like this growing trust with Obama, but when he talks about the U.S. being exceptional, I have to strongly disagree. He brought that in there. And, you know, I don't agree with everything Putin said, but I don't think we're exceptional. We're exceptional in some ways, but I'm not very proud of many of those ways that we cheated. Ray, one more question. Will you come back and visit us again? Of course I will. This is fun. It's a great conversation. The regular viewers of this show are ecstatic. The comments are over the top. And you and I have so many mutual friends. I'm sorry we waited this long before we got to know each other. But thank you very much.

We'll have you back next week if we can. Thank you. Thank you so much. Or as we get it, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.