Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor: NATO's Misguided Actions Towards Russia

Episode Date: March 4, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor: NATO's Misguided Actions Towards RussiaSee 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 Monday, March 4th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor scheduled to be on with us now. We're trying to communicate with him. Occasionally, communications break down no matter how talented the guest is or how determined our team is, and we'll find him and connect with him. I thought that while we're on air with so many of you lining up, I would chat

for a few minutes with you about the breaking news of today, which is, of course, a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on whether or not Donald Trump's name can appear on ballots in primary elections and should he get the nomination in the general election for President of the United States. Those of us that monitor these things for a living, hoping for a unanimous Supreme Court decision, and that's exactly what happened. If you haven't followed the news in the past hour and 20 minutes, it is that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously, nine to nothing, that Donald Trump's name can appear on the ballots. What was the dispute here? Well, after the Civil War, the states

ratified what are known as the Civil War Amendments, the 13th Amendment, which prohibited slavery, the 14th Amendment, which required the states to engage in equal protection to enforce rights equally, and the 15th Amendment, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race. The 14th Amendment has a clause in it which was written to prevent those who participated in the war on the side of the South in what is sometimes called the Civil War and sometimes called the War Between the States from ever running for federal office. That's known as the Disqualification Clause. Whoever aided or abetted an insurrection, the reference in the amendment is to the Civil War or the War Between the States, that insurrection. Does that apply to all insurrections? Does it apply

to words that Donald Trump used on the morning of January 6th? Does it apply to any hesitation he may have had while in the White House to call out troops to stop what was happening in the Capitol. Well, in the state of Colorado, a judge held a trial and Trump participated in the trial, not personally, but through his lawyers. I don't think he or his lawyers took it seriously, but they did participate. And this judge ruled that January 6th was an insurrection, but that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the presidency because it didn't name the presidency as being excluded from running for office. Remember, the clause in question says whoever aided or abetted an insurrection is excluded from becoming an officer of the United States. Is the president an officer of the United States. He sure is. But this judge in Colorado

ruled that because the word president or the word presidency didn't appear in the 14th Amendment, it would not apply to Donald Trump. Supreme Court of Colorado reversed her and said, of course, it applies to the presidency. And of course, it applies to the president. And you already ruled, Your Honor, that he aided and abetted an insurrection. So we're going to direct the Secretary of State of Colorado to keep his name off the ballot. The same case was also filed in Minnesota. And in Minnesota, the Supreme Court said, well, the 14th Amendment doesn't say you can't run for office. It only says you can't serve. And he's not running for president. He's running for the Republican nomination for president.

So his name can stay on the ballot. So here you have the court of last resort in two states, two liberal states, Colorado and Minnesota, coming to opposite interpretations of what one clause in the Constitution means. Question, can the Constitution mean different things in different states? Answer, no. The Supreme Court from the very beginning of the country declared that the Constitution must mean the same thing in all parts of the states, all parts of the country. The states can interpret their state laws and their state constitutions however they see fit. That's part of the beauty of what remains of our federalist system. The feds have taken so much authority away from the states by bribing them. Another story for another time. But a clause

in the Constitution needs to mean the same thing everywhere. Otherwise, it's not a Constitution. So can a state keep someone off the ballot because he's been accused, not proven guilty, but accused of participating in an insurrection? Answer, for a state office, it's up to the states. But for a federal office, and there's only one federal office for which we vote nationwide, president, we don't vote for president and vice president separately, so effectively you're just voting for the president. For the federal office, the mechanism for keeping anyone off the ballot is going to have to be decided by congress so there are two types of clauses in the constitution one is called

self-executing and the other is requires legislation to execute example the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It's pretty clear what that means. It's self-executing. The states don't need any guidance from Congress as to what that means. But the clause of the 14th Amendment, which says anyone who once took an oath of office to support the Constitution and then aided or abetted an insurrection against it shall not serve as an officer of the United States. The Supreme Court today said that is not self-executing, meaning Congress has to decide what that means and how it should apply. So Congress will have to come up with legislation saying either an allegation is sufficient or you've got to be convicted of a crime. You know, there was a time before your name can be barred from the ballot.

There was a time when election officials could say things like, oh, we know Jimmy. We all saw him in a Confederate uniform 10 years ago. He fought for the South and now he wants to run for Congress, he's excluded. And that was an acceptable mechanism for excluding somebody. But as the Civil War or war between the states generation passed away, and as the constitutional language didn't change, and as our perception of due process, what the government needs to go through before it can take your life, liberty, or property became more refined, it became apparent to those of us that study and lecture and write about these things,

that before somebody loses a liberty under the Constitution, it can't be done by the decision of a bureaucrat. It would have to be with due process, meaning that it would have to be a charge, an allegation that somebody participated in or abated and abetted an insurrection. And then somebody, presumably the government, would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

That's a very, very high standard. And then and only then can that person's name be taken off the ballot. That would be one way for the Congress to resolve this. The other way for the Congress to resolve it is to do nothing and just let the Republicans and Democrats decide who their nominees are going to be. And then the people will decide who they want to be president of the United States. Congress has the liberty to do that. Some of us thought that the court should have established the mechanism for determining who can run and who

can't, because it is the court's job to say what the Constitution means. But the court decided here that it would kick the can down the road a bit and let Congress decide, knowing that in an election year, there's no way Congress, which is deeply, deeply divided, is going to take up this hot potato. So the good news is the people will decide who gets to be their nominee for the Republican side, for the Democratic side, and who gets elected president of the United States. The bad news is this was a long, tortuous, expensive piece of constitutional litigation, which went on in about 12 or 13 states. Do we have Colonel McGregor with us? I think we do. Yes, Judge. I'm sorry about that. Well, I'm glad you're here, Colonel. I was just... Well, when you're CEO of a large organization,

you are obligated, unfortunately, from time to time to sit through tough meetings. Wait a minute. I thought the CEO was the boss. It's the chief executive. Only kidding. Only kidding. But thank you very much for joining us, Colonel. I was just explaining the Supreme Court decision today. I'm ecstatic that it is unanimous, and I'm happy that the people will get to decide who our president is going to be, and not bureaucrats and not black-robed judges. But thank you very much for being with us, Colonel McGregor. It's always a pleasure, no matter what we're talking about. Over the weekend, Colonel, a tape was revealed, which has since been authenticated, of German generals

talking about the use of Taurus offensive weaponry in Ukraine. This is German weaponry and how it would be better if German technicians, it wasn't clear if they're talking about military or intelligence or civilians, would be necessary to operate these things. The fallout from this seems to indicate that there are German officials already on the ground in Ukraine. I Ukrainians begin World War III? Well, the lack of professionalism in the German senior ranks is very disturbing. I'm afraid that over the last several decades, we probably have succeeded in Americanizing the German senior military leadership, which is unfortunate. I don't think any of these men were talking in terms that made a great deal of sense, because much of it revolved around how do we do this without revealing that we're actually involved in it. And that's a rather stupid observation. When you provide a cruise missile that is as powerful as the Taurus, you effectively make yourself a co-belligerent. And that should have been made very clear by these senior officers to

their government. I think that's the first thing. Secondly, there are many technicians in civilian clothes, not in uniform on the ground in Ukraine, but the vast majority are British or American. How many other Europeans may be there is simply unknown to me. I'm surprised that there would be any Germans there at all. But it's now clear from the comments made by the German chancellor that if there are any, they will be withdrawn. I think that's an absolute certainty. I don't think these missiles will be provided to the Ukrainians. And I think that Schultz is running in fear from an electorate that doesn't want anything to do with the war in Ukraine from the standpoint of committing German soldiers to action. So I suppose the positive fallout from

all of this is that the German government will now tighten its grip on what's actually happening. Yeah. Clearly, whoever was there in whatever capacity they were there could only have been sent by Chancellor Scholz. He may have been caught with his pants down, but this had to be a decision of his. I mean, if I'm wrong, correct me, if there's some authority in the German government that could have sent troops or civilians or technicians or intel there without the chancellor knowing about it. That would be a defect in their system, but he must have known about it. Am I right? Well, one would think so, but unfortunately, I think things are as haphazardly organized and mismanaged in Berlin as they are in Washington. I think many things are happening on

the ground in many places in the world right now involving the Central Intelligence Agency and special operations forces about which very few Americans are informed. So I think the same thing has happened in Germany. I think there was a mad rush to take advantage of the Ukrainian war with Russia to involve any number of people and agendas. I think Schultz is now concerned about that. I think he will work tirelessly to try and get control of what's actually happening. But I'm afraid it's very probable that he simply did not know. When you and I talked about this last, we, or at least I, thought that Chancellor Scholz's comments about there are no troops on the ground, don't worry, I'm not going to send you there, words to that effect, were intended to neutralize comments made the day before by President Macron of France,

who suggested it wouldn't be out of the question. And then again, over the weekend, he suggested yet again that French special forces could be sent. What do you think about the belligerence coming from President Macron, and how does that rest with the remainder of the heads of state of the NATO countries? I think Macron is simply imitating us. We have a habit of employing special operations forces without really consulting anyone or informing anyone. And I think that's been going on for quite a while. We did that in the 60s. We did it again in the late 70s, part of the 80s.

I think the French are just imitating us. Macron is also trying to present himself as an important figure in what's happening. He's not. If anything, the French are increasingly irrelevant to what happens. And that's part of the problem. He wants to be seen as something he is not, as a significant actor on the world stage. This is a problem for the British as well. They are simply not significant players. They don't have the military power. They don't have the economic strength. They don't have the economic strength. They're essentially irrelevant. Now, the Germans were not, but they're becoming irrelevant because of their de-industrialization

that they themselves have undertaken to destroy their own economy. But the Germans are sort of the last holdouts in terms of anybody with any real capability. The problem is on the military side, their capability is very limited. In fact, most of what we call special operations forces was liquidated under Merkel. So I don't think the Germans have anything to speak of. Colonel, is NATO waging war against Russia without acknowledging it publicly? Yeah, I think they are. And of course, this is not just foolish, it's extremely dangerous. As I've said before, we hold a very weak hand. We are not in a position from a military or an

economic standpoint to wage war against anyone. Our position is very fragile. The same thing is true in Europe. We're bluffing, Judge. That's the danger. You don't want to bluff. Bluffing is the last thing you want to engage in when you're dealing with a power like Russia, whose capabilities are real, as we see. You know, this goes back to the discussion that we've had about the growth and expansion and development of Russian military power as a result of this very, very misguided war in Ukraine.

Everything has turned out in a way that is the opposite of what was promised by all political leadership, because they completely miscalculated, underestimated, and misread Russia. The danger now is that Russia may misread us. In other words, when you start providing these kinds of cruise missiles that are really dangerous weapons that can strike deeply into Russian territory, they begin to wonder whether or not we're prepared to escalate to the next higher level. And that's what we don't want to do. But at the moment, we've got people who are bluffing. It's the wrong thing to do at the wrong time and the wrong place for all the wrong reasons. What we should do is politely exit the scene and turn this over to the Europeans to sort out with Moscow.

But unfortunately, the Europeans are as bad as we are. We've succeeded in Americanizing them and their thinking and mentality. Do these Europeans, whether it's Scholz or Sunak or Macron believe in the Victorian Newland argument that we should use Ukraine as a battering ram to drive Vladimir Putin from office? And if they do believe that, do they think that they're participating in that and helping it to happen? I think that's exactly what they thought they were doing. I think they discovered that that has failed miserably, and the situation is now infinitely more dangerous. And that's why Schultz made the statements that he did. Schultz, I think, now feels very much at risk. And he should,

because the Russians have spoken very directly to the Germans publicly and said, you know, if you persist in this line, if you march down this road, then you and Berlin should expect to be attacked. We're not going to sit here and let you attack us with impunity. You will feel the pain at home in Germany. So I think Schultz knows that. Schultz is very afraid. Things have gotten out of control. But Macron and Sunak and the rest are still living in fantasy world. And they assume that our power is limitless and that they can rely upon us to back them regardless of what they do. It's not very different from Netanyahu's position right now. He's confident that we will do whatever he tells us. And I think the Europeans feel the same way,

that in any confrontation with Russia, we will do whatever they ask us to do. It's ridiculous. We don't have the capability. We don't have the strength. We don't have the power. That's why this is a very dangerous moment. I would say the situation today is more dangerous

than it's been at any point in the last two and a half years. Your conclusion that you just gave us was almost underscored, maybe it was underscored, by four-star General U.S. Army Chief of Staff Randy George, who without saying we are unprepared, articulated over the weekend that the Russians are very prepared and should not be underestimated and have, quote, done very well, closed quote, at boosting their defense industry and their military preparedness. You've been telling us this for a year, Colonel. Yes, of course. And I'm not the only one. You've heard similar things from Scott Ritter and others. But the problem now is so acute and we are so weak that the Army chief of staff is trying to instruct the political leadership in Washington publicly. He knows how weak we are. He can't recruit for his own army. His army is, in terms

of morale, discipline, organization, and training, is in no position to take on the Russians. He knows that. He's not going to say it publicly, so what he says instead is don't continue to be stupid and underestimate the Russians, who are now stronger than they've been since the 1980s. And that's a fact. Alistair Crook reports this morning that one of the 12 acknowledged CIA bases in Ukraine that were mentioned in that CIA puff piece, the 10,000-word puff piece in the New York Times last weekend, was destroyed by Russian artillery

and that it is more likely than not that Americans were killed. Should the government reveal this, or will they just act like these were civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time? I think the latter is probably what we will say, but the prudent thing at this stage would be for us to get completely out of Ukraine. If we don't, we're going to end up being drawn into this, and we're going to suffer serious losses from which we won't easily recover. So the answer is get out. And I think the Russians have exercised tremendous restraint. Putin has always known a great deal more about what we are doing on the ground in Ukraine than we realize.

There's not much that happens in that country that the Russians don't know about. I mean, good Lord, they've worked with the Ukrainians and lived with the Ukrainians for centuries. So why would they not know? Of course they know. And he has deliberately avoided taking actions that he thought might lead to a confrontation with us. But it's becoming more and more clear with each passing day that he's reaching the conclusion that he may not have any choice because we are not listening. And if he has to take action in order to get our attention, he's going to do it. I mean, again, the general staff in Moscow, the Stavka, is being asked to look at the expansion of the Russian military by another 800,000 men. They're not running out of men.

What they're looking at is the requirement that may be unavoidable to march all the way to the Polish border. Because how else can they secure their country? If we are going to continue to treat Ukraine, Western Ukraine, as a launching pad for attacks against Russia, what do you do if you're sitting in Russia? You say, well, we don't have any choice. You've got to march into Western Ukraine and clean the place out and ensure that it's secure. Then we'll just build our respective military power there in the event that the West is stupid enough to attack us in the future. Again, as you know, the Finns and the Swedes are sponsoring, backing, supporting, whatever you want to call it, American basing up near the Arctic Circle, where presumably we will

try to place missiles. Again, the Russians, they don't want this. They're not interested in it. It's unnecessary, but if we do it, the Russians feel they don't want this. They're not interested in it. It's unnecessary. But if we do it, the Russians feel compelled to respond to it. Right. And that's what the Europeans need to understand. And they're not getting it. But I think Schultz has finally begun to grasp it. I hope.

Agreed, Colonel. I wonder what the Russian response will be to this. Here's Secretary of State Austin, number eight, Chris, on Friday testifying before Congress. We know that if Putin is successful here, he will not stop. He will continue to take more aggressive action in the region. And other leaders around the world, other autocrats around the world will look at this and they'll be encouraged by the fact that, you know, this happened and we failed to support a democracy. And so if you're a Baltic state, you're really worried about, you know, whether or not you're next. And so they know Putin.

They know what he's capable of. And quite frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia. I think this is fear-mongering nonsense. What do you think, Colonel? Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is the neocongering nonsense. What do you think, Colonel? Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is the neocon narrative. It's 1938 again.

If you don't stop Putin where he is now, then Austria and Czechoslovakia and everything else will fall into his lap. It's all nonsense. But the point is that we don't seem to understand that we are the provocateurs, not the Russians. We go to the Russians into intervening in eastern Ukraine. They did not want to go in. We left them no choice. And again, the same people, the Newlands, the Applebaums, the rest of these people on the neocon ticket are all trying desperately to widen this war and drag all of us into it when it's unnecessary to do so. Speaking truth at this stage is very difficult because the American people and many

Europeans have been brainwashed to believe something that's utterly untrue. But it has to happen. We've got to sober up because the Russians are prepared. The Russians are not kidding. We are bluffing. We are in no position to fight. We need to stop. And I'm glad that the Army chief of staff effectively said that. But it wasn't exactly what he said. It's what he didn't say. We're weak. They're strong. He told the truth. They are strong. But he didn't finish the story and say, we're weak. Here's President Putin himself, number two, Chris, at the end of last week. They should eventually understand that we also have weapons, and they know it. I just said it now myself, weapons that can hit targets on their territory. Everything that the West is coming up with now, what they threaten the world with, it can result in a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and therefore the destruction of civilization. Right, Colonel, when you said he's serious, he sounded very serious. Yes, we have to understand the man is telling you the truth at some point. Believe what people tell you. He's effectively saying,

and this is why Schultz has spoken out as he has, if you persist in this folly, if you want to put troops on the ground, if you're going to attack deep into our territory with these strike weapons like the Taurus, then you should expect to be attacked. You should expect to be struck by the same kinds of weapons. And we are prepared to do it. And he is. This is not a game. This is not a charade.

We need to understand it's all serious. And we need to look at the realities on the ground. They are prepared. We are not. They have the depth and the capability to do it. We do not. The correct answer is end this conflict. Come to terms, sit down and agree to a new territorial arrangement and to the neutrality of Ukraine. Abandon this nonsense about NATO. And behind the scenes, NATO members know this. I'm talking about the Europeans. They know this. They're very worried. They're not saying anything publicly, but they're very worried. Right now, the status of the $61 billion, billion, that President Biden and the U.S. Senate want to ship over to Ukraine in various ways rests in the hands of one man, Mike Johnson,

who's the Speaker of the House and who heretofore has been against it and is not even going to let it come to a vote, I think he'll probably cave. But I'm not asking you to analyze him psychologically or politically. What happens if he does cave? What happens if the $61 billion is passed? How much longer can this go on, even with some of that $61 billion, whether it's cash, whether it's new equipment, whether it's old equipment? I think it's probably old equipment. The $61 billion is going to stay in the U.S. in the military industrial complex while they build new stuff to replace the old stuff we've sent. I don't want to get ahead of myself. How much longer can this go on even with the $61 billion? Well, I suppose it could drag on into the summer. Ultimately, most of the money that does reach Ukraine will be stolen. This is the problem. We know that members of the House and the Senate that have been strong supporters have actually been in Kiev talking to Zelensky and his friends and saying, look, you can't continue to steal on the scale that you've

been stealing. We can't support you. I mean, it's that bad. And we know that billions will be lost that way. I mean, obviously, we are paying for whatever is left of the Ukrainian army on the ground. We're paying the bureaucratic structure that passes for a government. We are going to provide some additional equipment. A lot of that is not scheduled to arrive for a very long time. But we're also simply going to watch billions of dollars vanish as we have thus far. I mean, that's why this entire facade needs to be destroyed. We need to tell the truth. No one wants to tell the truth. We've lost this war. We've destroyed the Ukrainian state. We've destroyed millions of Ukrainian lives. It will take decades for this world,

this part of the world to recover from the disaster that we've created. No one wants to stand up and say that and take responsibility for it. But that's the truth. And the Europeans are afraid to say anything. European leaders are afraid to say very much publicly because they don't want to spoil their relationship with Washington, for which they also benefit. It's a terrible set of circumstances. The truth would really set us free in this case, but no one wants to tell it. Mike Johnson, I have very low

expectations of him because he's just another politician, regardless of whatever he professes to be privately. But the truth would set him free and would set everybody in the House Intelligence Committee, saying that Speaker, he's not going to use the word cave because to him, it's a good thing that Speaker Johnson can be trusted to cave. Speaker Johnson now has the leeway and the flexibility to work through Congress and the Appropriations Committee. I think it's going to moving quickly. We're gonna get our appropriations- They weren't out of ammunition in April. They're not completely out of ammunition.

I've been to, I was in Kyiv last month and met with Zelensky also at the Munich Security Conference and certainly spoke to our military and they are rationing, but they are not out. This is critical. Yeah. We have to support them now or they will lose. And I think the Speaker sees that emergency.

Hakeem Jeffrey sees that emergency. And I think we're going to see bills hit the floor. What would they actually get of the $61 billion, Colonel? Would it be old stuff in warehouses? Would it be things not yet built? Would it be ammunition that we have retained for our own defensive purposes? Should we ever need it? Would it be cash? Would it be all of the above? It's going to be a combination of everything. We've actually

purchased artillery ammunition from South Korea and shipped it to Ukraine. You're going to see more of these kinds of things happen, I suppose, if this goes through. The one thing that Mike Turner doesn't seem to understand, and obviously Mike Johnson doesn't get it either, is that if they insist on this, the next time they go to Kiev, they may be greeted by Russian military authorities that are on the ground there. We'll end with that. Nicely put. Startling, but as you've been saying, truthful. Colonel, I know you're having a very busy day, and I know a lot of people are demanding your time, and rightly so. But you've given us a wonderful, wonderful, instructive, illuminative half hour, and I thank you very much for it, my friend. I hope we can see your smiling face next week.

Okay. Thanks, Judge. Bye- we can see your smiling face next week. Okay. Thanks, Judge. Bye-bye. Thank you. All the best. Wow. All right. So my blabbing on and on and on about the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court was just enough time for the good colonel to get here. Thank you very much for sticking with us. The audience expanded enormously, or as somebody likes to say, hugely. Coming up at two o'clock Eastern this afternoon, Matt Ho, and throughout the afternoon, Scott Ritter and Aaron Matei.

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!