Judging Freedom - CIA's Version of Ukraine War w/Jack Devine fmr CIA

Episode Date: September 15, 2023

CIA's Version of Ukraine War w/Jack Devine fmr CIASee 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 Friday, September 15th, 2023. Jack Devine joins us today by popular request. Jack, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. So many people were anxious to have me back, Judge. That's a vote of confidence. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Well, I want you back. And a lot of people are happy when we present viewpoints that challenge the normal viewpoints that we talk about. Everybody knows your views on the war are not the same as the other guests we have. And I'm interested in exposing my viewers

to your views as well. And that works for me as well. I get a lot out of this. Well, because there's a different angle, different view, and you need to hear it. Thank you. You need to think about it. First, a couple of big picture questions. And then I want to talk about Ukraine and particularly some of views that you and your group articulated as recent as last week. But big picture questions. How did the CIA ever get a secret army?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Well, most of the CIA history was not a secret army, right? In other words, even in Afghanistan, it wasn't an army. You're talking about less than 150 people. So when you do covert action, you're renting locals, right? So the CIA does not have what I would call a standing army. People from the army are detailed young people that, and we'll have an infrastructure from the bill, to build from that. So I don't think secret army, unless you're talking about if you're really going to, not Afghanistan, but let's say today, Ukraine, there is no secret army there. Well, that's the question. I'm going to say there is no secret.

Okay. When President Obama decided to rid Libya of Muammar Gaddafi and famously announced that this was happening while Congress was on spring break and he was in Brazil. I don't know if you remember this. This is about midway. I remember some of the shootouts there for sure. This is midway through his second term. And when asked why he didn't inform the Congress under the War Powers Resolution, which gives him pretty much free reign for 90 days, and then he's got to inform, then he can do another 90 days, and there are some technical requirements. He said, I didn't use the military, so the War Powers Resolution didn't apply. What did you use? Well, he didn't say CIA, but he said intelligence assets. So does the CIA have bombs and missiles and jets and automatic weapons?

Absolutely not. What we're really talking about here, and you can use my experience in Afghanistan as a replica of that, is you might have 100 people on a big project, the biggest covert action project up until Afghanistan was that operation. And you have about 100 CIA, give or take, running this. So it's not an army, and I think that's the point. Where the president, or these quotes, I can't testify to the quotes. The CIA, he can't use the CIA with covert action. Any president, no president, excuse me, can use the CIA without going to Congress. In other words,

whether he used the U.S. military and went for war powers or decided to use CIA as a covert action arm, you're obligated to tell the Congress within seven, eight hours if you're going to take on a covert action operation. Okay, under the war powers. It's not that CIA is not free of congressional oversight. Okay, under the war powers resolution, he has to inform the entire Congress in a public way. Under the covert action, he only has to inform the gang of eight, which is the Congress within the Congress, the chair and ranking member of the two intelligence committees and the Republican and Democrat leaders of each house. So that's a

secret notification and they can't repeat what they hear in secret, right? It's a little bigger. It's a little bigger than that. It's actually the full committees. When there's something extraordinarily sensitive, it goes to gang of eight. But a program like the one you're talking about, that is the full committee. So now you're talking dozens of congressmen, both parties, left, right.

I like that because you need full support. Those who don't think you need bipartisan support, not full, but you need bipartisan support. They don't understand the process. So it has more oversight than someone might think. The gang of ideas were very special things that, you know, one of your assets is going to get killed or something. Right. You know, but there's oversight and there's oversight. If the intelligence community informs members of Congress in a secure skiff of some event that's going to happen, they can't go outside that skiff and discuss it with the public or the press and even or even fellow members of Congress, right? That's correct. And the Congress has been historically very judicious in how it behaves, no matter where you are in the spectrum. There are exceptions

where things have leaked to the great detriment of human life, but it's rare. The Congress handles this. I'm not a proponent of Congress. I know people are going to, you know, you're right. No, I understand where you're coming from. You call Congress judicious. I call them compliant. Well, you haven't met as many of them as I have, or you haven't met the same ones. Compliant is not the first thing that comes to mind. You know, when I was... Let me tell you, if your folks might find this interesting, part of your job as a senior CIA person when you're in charge of these programs, you have to go down and make a persuasive case. Right, understood. You'll get a question from every angle. Now, remember, I should add to one other thing

that your folks may not be aware of. Other than the most sensitive meetings, you have staff personnel that are right behind the congressman. So they've done a lot of research for taking notes. It is not, it's not a gentleman's club and certainly gender wise neither anymore, but it's not, it's, it's, you have to go and prepare. You know, this is not a casual meeting. I would prepare, everybody I know prepares and have people help them prepare for a congressional briefing. You better know what you're talking about when you go down there. Jack, who destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline?

I'm still working that one. I am still working that one. I'm settling where I did at the beginning. You think it was two guys in a sailboat or you think it was the CIA like Cy Hirsch said? Well, I'm convinced it's not the CIA. Well, look at this. The CIA has gone on the record. They usually don't go on the record. They were on the record that they were involved.

But I have practical reasons why the CIA didn't do that. They would have to do what you and I have just been talking about. You can't do that operation without briefing the full committees. In other words, that's not a gang of eight. That's a full committee because of the repercussions. And remember, let me tell you about the gang of eight in this. They hate being the gang of eight. They don't like being the gang of eight. Why?

Because they're then held responsible by all the other senators. Why didn't you tell us about that? So they try to avoid gang of eight meeting. They don't embrace it like, oh, we're really special. They hate it. So I think that would have been briefed and it would have been leaked. I don't think the Brits would ever have done it without coordinating. So I think it was practical for them to do it.

So I settled on I think the Ukrainians did it. Now, what has happened is you've seen more aggressive things inside Russia now than the Ukrainians. This seemed really bold until now as you start to look at it, there's a lot of aggressive action by the Ukrainians. So I'm not sure of it. I don't know anyone that really is, but I think I would settle on a Ukrainian operation. If American personnel, whether CIA, Navy SEALs, whatever they were, did it, would Putin be morally and legally justified in retaliating? Well, first, I don't think the hypothesis works. They would not have been involved. Okay. They weren't involved. So I don't want to do that.

You think Cy Hersh made this up? I have real trouble giving Putin moral authority on anything. I mean, he's brutal. He's now a public assassin. I mean, why would I give him moral authority? Why would I even put those words in his mouth? He has no moral authority. What is the basis for your recently articulated belief in renewed hope for a Ukraine victory in the war.

Yeah, well, here's where we've been for a long, long time. Actually, we started Ukrainian this week. We have a lot of time for it. What is the victory, right? I'm different from your other folks. I've been saying if they've just held off the Russians, remember we were going to give Zelensky a ticket we were so pessimistic about. You hold off Russia, that's my version of victory. Now, what this Ukrainian that I was talking to this week said, which made a lot of sense is,

Jack, do you realize that every war we've had, our country was occupied and there was no Ukraine left at the end. We were not an integral part, an integral United, a country. He said, no matter how this turns out, there will be a Ukraine sovereign state and that's a victory. So it's how you define it. I would just say, I would say in the case of the Russians, it clearly has been a big setback and one they weren't anticipating. Would you define a standstill where they are now and the cessation of violence and no more deaths as an acceptable, I don't know if the word victory is right, but an acceptable end? Judge, this is my forecast from the beginning. Right. This is where we were going to end up.

Right. There is no peace treaty. I was talking to a prominent lawyer. There has to be an armistice to sign the document. I said that is never going to happen. Putin can sign it without being overthrown. And neither can Zelensky. This is not going to happen.

But there can be a cessation about where we are. Ukrainians are not, I was also interested in the conversation I had with him because he said, look, what happens if we take the Donbass? There aren't any Ukrainian loyalists there. They all left to fight what's left of Russia. What do we do with it? We're going to occupy Donbass? So I think what we're looking at right now, I think, here's my prediction, latest fresh one for you, is I think there's going to be another six months of trying to outmaneuver. I think the Ukrainians realize that they're not going to have a strategic breakthrough.

I think they realize that now. That's my judgment. Putin's moving toward it, but he's hoping Kim Jong-un is going to give him what he needs to make life more miserable. He's going to try and get another army. But I think we're getting close to six months of, is it a victory? Is 20 meters here, 20 there? Right, I understand. But I'm going to say in 12, this is my prediction.

Go ahead. We will probably be looking at not a cessation, but a tamping down where both sides are complicit and we're not going to bomb Kiev. We're going to stop bombing things inside Russia. You know, they had the war in 2014. There's no settlement there either. Right. They just slowed down. So I think we're probably 12 to 18. Neither country can sustain this, in my view.

All right. President Zelensky has argued that the Donbass and the area around it now militarily and politically aligned with Russia is really Ukraine and the people there are Ukrainians. Put aside what language they speak and put aside their culture. Is it morally licit for the Ukraine government to be shelling and killing those people, civilians in Eastern Ukraine? I would refine the analysis in line with what I just said. I think the Ukrainians at the highest level understand Donbass is not Donbass of old.

There aren't any Ukrainians there. There are Russians. In other words, they're bombing Russian Ukrainians. So, but that's, you know, your point, there's two points here. One is, I'm suggesting that maybe the Ukrainians already understand how problematic that is. And it's not that they're not going to try and cut off the pass from Russia to Crimea. I think they're coming to the point that we're not going to get Crimea in this fight. And then so at a certain point, both sides have to settle down and then there'll be chance for a rebuild and so on. But what I said before is the Russians made their big push. The Ukrainians made theirs.

I said on this show, it is not going to be anywhere near as dramatic as everyone's hoping. I think Putin's going to try one more time to do something. And that's six months out. And it'll end up, well, I can't take it over. But it's a good show.

And then it'll quietly die down. It'll be off the front page of the papers. I don't mean to make, I want to correct myself. That's too blasé. But in a bigger scheme of things, that's where I think we're really headed. I think there's realism in Ukraine about that. And maybe whatever the public statement. Whatever the nationality is of the human beings living in Donbass, whether they're Russian-speaking Russians or Russian-speaking Ukrainians, is it morally licit for the Ukrainian government to be shelling them, their civilians, and killing them? Well, why don't you start with the question,

how can Russia try and slaughter the entire country? Because I really want to push you, I want to push you to the wall on this subject, and you don't want to answer. The answer is, to the best of my knowledge, they are not out deliberately shelling civilians. Are civilians getting killed? Yes. Is Putin deliberately just hitting targets? Now, he could hit more, right? He could hit more civilians.

Actually, the situation in Kiev is frankly not so bad during the day in terms of shelling. I mean, there just isn't any. So my point is, I'm not sure where we get on the moral part of it. I would just say, you know, God, what a terrible situation Putin has created. War is ugly. But I see nothing to indicate that the Ukrainians are deliberately trying to kill civilians. That's their game plan. I want to play a clip for you from President Zelensky, who argues in this clip, contrary to what you have just said, that there can be no peace until we expel the Russians from Eastern Ukraine and from Crimea. So take a look and tell

me what you think, Jack. Is Crimea the keyword for a path toward peace? Without the Crimea, without the Donbas, without our occupied territories, there won't be true sustainable peace in Ukraine, which means there will not be peace in this european area so yeah it can be sold diplomatically or it can be resolved in a military way we are for the russian troops to leave the peninsula without our pressure because it will mean less victims less casualties we care after our own people and we are caring after our own people. Let Putin care after his own citizens. Jack, is it realistic that the Russians could be pushed out of Donbass,

eastern Ukraine, and out of Crimea? Is President Zelensky realistic? What I said at the very beginning of the show is exactly what I would say today. That is not the reality, what he just said. And I think he knows that.

But if you were in his shoes, you don't say, oh, I think we're going to throw him the towel. I mean, I think, you know, there is a serious chess match going on. And, you know, you don't say, I'm going to move here next. So I'm saying take that with a grain of salt and stick with my call on that there is realism about what's possible. You will start to hear this. You will hear what I'm saying. This is my prediction.

Over the next month, you'll hear more people in Ukraine saying, you know, this thing is going to be wound down. Will we begin to hear that from London and from Washington, stated differently, is the West getting tired of no serious movement either way? But this is actually a strategic play that has to, the whole show has to go on until the third act right so I don't think we're going to what we have to do to get Putin to stop is you need to keep the fighting going for six six more months you have to keep this going so that he is convinced that no it's not realistic and therefore I have to join the Ukrainians in a more realistic solution. He's not going to sit down with Zelensky. There's going to have to be people to talk about it.

There will be nothing public. This thing will just wind down with some ground rules that will be unwritten. So I think we're going to stick with it, and God forbid we pull back because then Putin will think, I can continue this for another year. He has to be convinced, and anyway he's going to be convinced in the next few months, and I think he's heading there. Rogozhin is a real wake-up call for him, that this thing has to end or his own political stability is at risk. And I've written to that, spoken to it. Paul Jay Here's another clip from President Zelensky basically saying a frozen war, meaning no movement of the line

between two forces, is not peace. We have to get our land, we have to get to decupate the land, and it's also not about the land, it's about the people, because the frozen war is not the peace Putin he want to Take all our country to destroy all our families houses because if He understands why he destroyed he understand that that Ukraine will never go back go away from our land We'll never do it. That's why he has to kill us I go away from our land. We'll never do it. That's why he has to kill us. I enjoy writing because words mean a lot.

Right. The meaning of each word. What do you think he says for domestic political consumption? Because he wants to... He's using the word... Let me do the word smithing for one second. He's saying peace. Jack Devine is not talking peace.

I'm talking tamping down of cessation. Nothing is totally resolved. There's no peace agreement. And Zelensky's right. There's no peace agreement. That doesn't mean we still don't have a peace agreement with North Korea. Right? So I think, you know, you can get into this word stuff

and wordsmithing. So there's a difference. I'm not suggesting that there's peace and harmony, and we all freeze it here. What I'm saying is it'll be a cessation. Guess what's going to happen during the cessation? Russia's going to try and build a bigger, stronger, smarter army. What are the Ukrainians going to do? They're going to rebuild their army. There is not peace. Let's be really clear here. I'm saying they cannot sustain it at this level. They both have to bring it down. Different play, different show.

Peace is a war for what I'm saying. Before I let you go, because I'm so fond of you and of our friendship, I'm going to play a clip from Admiral Kirby, the spokesperson for the National Security Council, saying what I think Jack Devine believes. What is the administration's goal? Is it to defeat Russia, or is it ultimately to seek some sort of negotiated settlement? Man, I don't know how many times I've answered this question in the last year and a half. And we have been, again, very, very consistent. We want to see Ukraine succeed on the battlefield. We want to see them get all their territory back. We want to see their sovereignty respected.

We want to see no Russian troops inside Ukraine. We want to see the war end. And it could end today, obviously, if Mr. Putin would do the right thing and just get the hell out. That's clearly not going to happen right now. So we're going to continue to provide Ukraine with the capabilities that they need to be successful. MICHAEL ISIKOFF His key line is not going to happen now, right? So I'm saying there isn't going to be any peace, but what's going to happen is I'm sticking with

it. I didn't hear him quite say what I was saying. MICHAEL ISIKOFF How would you have said it? How would you have said it if you were the spokesperson for the government? Oh, no, excuse me. Excuse me. I didn't say I wouldn't say what he said. Oh, okay. All right. I don't want to put words in your mouth. But if I were to say to you, what should be the goal of American involvement in Ukraine in 100 words or less, how could you answer it? Our objective is to get Putin to stop the war activity and hopefully keep enough pressure on him that he leaves the scene. There is a bigger issue. And I've been saying it, Judge, so it's to hold tight and the Russians will take care of this problem. If we get wobbly knees, soft-spoken, peacenik old sayings,

he is going to stay fighting, killing people, not only in Ukraine. If we waver, this is not the moment to be marching and talking about. There is not going to be a peace agreement. There is not going to be one. So keep the pressure on. And I'm saying both sides will, there won't be a table where they sit down. Both sides will slow down the war for a while. That's a good thing.

And then God has to figure out what's going to happen in the next war. They can't sustain it at this level. Jack Devine, you are steadfast in your view and one in a million. Thank you very much for joining us, my dear friend. I want your audience to know that too and go back and check the record on what I say and where I am,

because this is not like a revisionist history here. Thank you for your kind comments. Oh, thanks. Thank you for your- I appreciate the thinking part of your audience. Thank you for your time, Jack. There you have it, my friends. From time to time, I feel morally compelled to allow a view that I know most of you don't accept to challenge your way of thinking. I do that because I like you and respect you. Now, we're still at 199,000 subscribers. We're oh so close to 200,000. Just knock on a few doors, send a few emails. We'll break that 200,000 threshold probably this afternoon. 4.15 today, Eastern Time, our round

table, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. Maybe one day Jack Devine will join that roundtable. We'll see. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thanks for watching!