Judging Freedom - Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: The FBI Is the Deep State

Episode Date: August 13, 2024

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: The FBI Is the Deep StateSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Thanks for watching! Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, August 13th, 2024. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski will be here in a moment on the FBI and Scott Ritter and on some breaking news in Jerusalem and in Russia. But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23 percent. So $100 invested in gold a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. If you have $100 in the bank, it still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less.

Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power, and mine, by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold. Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. Karen Kwiatkowski, a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome to the show. You have a fabulous piece

at judgenap.com and elsewhere about Scott Ritter and the FBI, the FBI as the deep state of the United States. And I want to talk to you about it. But before we do, just some breaking news on two fronts. First, in Russia, it is being reported by credible sources that Russian surveillance has concluded that the Ukrainian invasion in Kursk was planned and carried out by NATO troops, Estonians, Romanians, Poles, Germans, French, and Americans. And Russian surveillance is reporting that they overheard voices of the troops and they can identify distinctly American accents and some of them are dead. Does any of this surprise you? Well, in some ways it does surprise me because it was such a desperate kind of last ditch effort on the part of the NATO and Ukraine side to kind of bring some attention back to

Ukraine and shake loose some aid before we have our election. And so in that respect, I can see why the West, why NATO and the U.S. would be involved in it. But on the other hand, extremely, extremely risky. So how are we going to deal with the dead Americans now? I don't know. What will the American public do? Will Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go to Dover Air Force Base to greet caskets draped in American coffins, in American flags. Could this have happened, Karen, without the president authorizing it? How far up the food chain does something like this go?

This is an invasion of Russia, financed by American money, guided by American intelligence perpetrated in part by American personnel. Yeah, but I don't have faith that they talk to Biden about this, or at least a Biden that is understanding of anything. I mean, you know, we haven't seen much of that president. It's unclear that we even have a president. So I think you have to go up to where the decision would be made. And it's got to be the neocons. It's got to be Jake Sullivan, secretary of state and secretary of defense. They have got to be putting the plans together and basically rubber having Biden rubber stamp them. I mean, Biden is not well. We know this. OK, so it's this is actually a very dangerous time for our country when we don't even know who are making, you know, the people that are making these decisions. And these decisions are decisions going to war with the nuclear armed state.

I mean, that's what you're doing when you invade Russia. Correct. Correct. Correct. Can you imagine if a Russian militia out of Mexico invaded El Paso or crossing the Bering Straits, I don't know what the name of the town is in Alaska, invaded the first town they came to in Alaska, which is probably more likely than the El Paso scenario. But can you imagine what our reaction would be to either of these? Oh, yeah. Yeah, we would, that would be a definite act of war. And I think as all these act of wars, you know, are, the country's population tends to come together in rejecting that. So the fact that we are behaving in this way, understanding just the common sense reaction that Russians will have, that Americans will have, without a president that is, you know, cogent, it's insane is what it is. And I don't know how the rest of the world views our country's decision making, but clearly, we do not know who are making these decisions

in our government. We do not know. I do think they're consulting with guys like Graham, because Graham was quite excited and quite complimentary about this particular Kursk invasion into Russia. Colonel Wilkerson, your former colleague, thinks that this probably did not make it either to the Secretary of State or to the President so they could have some sort of plausible deniability. to approve this. Intelligence assets were clearly involved. American equipment was clearly involved. Much of the equipment can only be operated by Americans. It's unclear if the human beings whose voices were heard were CIA, CIA contractors, military contractors, or active duty military. I just hope it was not the last because if any of those guys or gals were killed or injured, there'll be quite a hullabaloo back here when that is made known. this entry into the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, which is preserved exclusively for Islamic worshipers by Itamar Ben-Gavir, the right-wing member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet, who was also the head of the Israeli equivalent of the FBI.

He was well protected by police. He was protected by the military, and he was supported by a couple of thousand Zionist fundamentalists, I'll call them, who helped him walk into the mosque as an act of extreme provocation. Why would you do things like this? This is a really hard question for an American to answer. I think most Americans have no idea how the country of Israel operates. We do not understand Zionism. We do not understand the political Zionism of Israel. We don't understand the players. I think one of the biggest things that we miss in America is the sheer contempt that Zionists hold any other people and any other religion, most certainly, obviously, Christianity and Islam. These religions are not equal

in their mind to Judaism, even though Judaism is very, in many ways, it's like Protestantism. There are a lot of brands of the study and the worship for Jews. There's a lot of variety there. But for Zionists, there's one thing, and that is the political state of Israel, dominated, wholly populated by Zionist Jews, and everybody else is secondary. So why they're doing it now as they're being, I mean, is it an act of, you know, you can't beat us up? You know, they are worried that Iran will strike them back. They're certainly not prevailing against Hezbollah. They haven't won against Hamas. So is this kind of a rebellious thing or does it signify the sense that I think many Zionists have that they must win and that they will win? And when they do, all of the territory, not the 67 borders, but everything that is considered greater Israel, will come under direct Zionist control, and that all others will not just be subjugated,

but will be gone. And I think we've seen that idea of how we can make people go away in the behavior we've seen the IDF and the Israeli government vis-a-vis Gaza. They want Gazans dead, and that is very clear. I think it's hard for Americans to understand that. Well, you're going to hear that articulated. You're going to hear me reading the subtitles of that articulated coming out of the mouth of Mr. Ben-Gavir, who along the path on his way into the mosque stopped to talk in Hebrew to television cameras. Watch him, and here's what he said. Temple man on Tisha B'Av, today we commemorate the destruction of the temple,

but we must also honestly acknowledge that there is significant change here regarding the sight of the Temple. But we must also honestly acknowledge that there is significant change here regarding the site of Jews praying. As I said, our policy is to permit prayer. But I'll say something else. We must win this war. We must win, not go to summits in Doha or in Cairo. We must defeat them, bring them to their knees. That's the message.

We can defeat Hamas, bring it to its knees. Now he says this leading a march of a few thousand people, a good number of whom are armed to protect him. He is in the government, into an area that by law, by Israeli law, is preserved exclusively for worshipers of Islam. If not B-rolls, the background roll of him doing it again, if this is the same march that we're looking at now, if this is not provocation, what is? Yeah, it's provocation. And it's also a demonstration of Jewish, I shouldn't say Jewish, but Zionist fundamentalist contempt for all of their enemies. And their enemies are, it's not just Islam, you know, it's Christians, it's people in the U.S. government, it's people

like Scott Ritter, who report and say and characterize the Zionist government in an accurate way to a large audience. He's an enemy. So, you know, we have the Ukrainian kill list, you know, that is funded by the State Department, and it's got a lot of media people, Judge, you're on there. Not so much the kill list, but you know, these are the enemies of the state because they say things that Ukraine doesn't like. I think Zionist Israel operates much the same way. They don't want to hear criticism. They will do what they want in their territory, which they envision is greater Israel. And they're very aggressive about it. But of course, we've known this. But I think what we're seeing today really is the sheer contempt in which they hold those

who disagree with them, those who they perceive as having no value. Certainly their Islamic neighbors. But also, and I have to keep saying this, the Christians that live in that area as well, because that's a triple holy city. This area is cherished by all the three main religions that are of concern here. And Zionists don't care. Switching gears to Scott Ritter, you have a great analysis that you wrote. Are you convinced as I am and as Scott is and as many, many regular viewers of this show are that Ritter has been targeted by the federal government

because he's a pain in the neck to them because he's, in plain English, speaks truth to power. Yeah, he, exactly. He speaks truth to power and he speaks it to a very great and growing audience. He is very bold, as Ray McGovern says, the bravest guy he's ever seen. He, you know, you can't get him down. He continues to broadcast and speak the truth. And see, the problem is it's not just Scott. The truth is catching on. More and more people in this world are starting to say, what's wrong? What's wrong? And they're asking a few questions. And very quickly, they find out that there are truth tellers out there. There is accurate data out there. It doesn't generally come from mainstream media. It doesn't generally come from the governments, but it's out there. And Scott

is a very confident and reliable broadcaster of this. So I think they're worried. I think they're concerned. And certainly, you know, Scott, I watched the interview where he explained he thinks primarily this is related to, you know, well, obviously, Farah, because they said it, but relating to Russia. But to me, if you even bring up Farah, what is that, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Right. If you bring that up to me right now or any or even a year ago or 20 years ago, my major go to is like, oh, they must be concerned about AIPAC because, you know, if you bring it up, if you if you are talking about it, it's a very fine line. You have to be careful because it's not so much Russia and Scott. They have no case against Scott. This is harassment. They want to shut him up. But to use Farah really is alarming because it must be alarming for AIPAC. But also it's something that it gets it out there because, you know, we don't register any of the Israeli funded efforts to manipulate policy and politics in the United States. They are exempt from FARA. And every time, and it's always, certain congressmen are always advocating registering, you know, the political advocates for Israel in our government and having them register as agents, as foreign agents, because they are. And those agencies, those AIPAC, for example, and others are very resistant to that. So the fact that the FBI is using Farah against Ritter

should be, I think it's very concerning. And it's not just about silencing Ritter, because obviously they don't like that. But it is bringing that interests and may be interested in influencing what we're doing, doing that financially through agents and whatever. So that's what FARA is about, to register. So we know, yeah, it's fine to advocate for your country. We just need to know that that's what you're doing. And we don't know that with Israel. So I thought it was interesting that that's why they went after him, because they have, you know, there's a lot of tricks in the FBI bag. There's a lot of tricks in the Department of Justice. We've seen them use all kinds of things against Trump, for example, just Trump, just one guy, you know, and they've been very creative about how they've gone after

him. And that creativity, of course, could be applied to anybody, and it's certainly being applied to Scott. But in using Farah, I think, I don't know, my reaction is we need to keep a close eye on what this means for our policies and our politicians that are bought and paid for by Israel, which there are many of. Because we may be engaging or getting ready to engage in a World War III that's not Eastern Europe this time, but in the Middle East. Why?

Because we have no control. We have no president that anybody can recognize that is making decisions. And we have an overwhelming influence of, I can say Zionist Israel, but let's just say Prime Minister Netanyahu, an overwhelming influence of this guy who could care less about American interests, who only cares, as he should, for Israel's interests. And yet we've got how many standing ovations did he get? The fourth time that he and every time he's addressed our joint session, he gets standing ovations. You know what called me the most about the standing ovations was the longest one, and it was the one in which he attacks the demonstrators outside the building for exercising their First Amendment rights. And everybody that's applauding for him has taken the same oath you took when you joined the military and I took when I became a judge, and they took

when they joined the Congress to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the First Amendment, of course. That infuriated me. That lapdog treatment was them trying to curry favor with the person who controls the purse strings that fund their campaigns, rather than them representing the views of the people who voted for them and sent them there. The warrant for Ritter's home specified three electronic devices, a mobile device and two desktops. For that, they sent 40 FBI agents, a SWAT team, a bomb squad, and several trucks, which of course they filled with documents and papers going back to his earliest days as a UN weapons inspector in the George W. Bush administration, as if that could have anything whatsoever to do with what they're looking for.

They gave him a receipt only for the electronic devices, the items specified in the warrant. They did not give him a receipt for all the other stuff because they didn't know what it was. We have to go through it before we can give you a receipt. No, no, I want a receipt now. We're not giving you the receipt, Scott. Yeah, that's very interesting because the State Department, when they confiscated his passport a couple months ago, also did not give him a receipt. And they knew what that was. So I am not sure how and how Americans are supposed to respond to this, because if they can do that to Scott and Scott's very public and he's very brave and bold and he's a good track record of dealing with government harassment.

We don't. the rest of us, many of us don't have that. So is it meant to intimidate all the rest of us? Because they're not intimidating, Scott, we know that. But is it meant to send a message to others? Because it looks like it is. And I think we need to start figuring out how we're going to deal with this, because, and obviously the first thing is more speech. More people are going to need to start figuring out how we're going to deal with this. And obviously, the first thing is more speech. More people are going to need to just say, we're not going to. in your piece, something that I have long, long believed, even before I became interested in foreign affairs, starting this podcast three years ago, is that the FBI is lazy and complacent when they're pursuing spies and bank robbers. But oh, when the government, when the government is the victim, when their pride is harmed, when it's a political opponent, they loathe.

They're as energetic as can be. Yeah. Well, I'm just observing the reality when I write that. It's very interesting. We can kind of see in the way that the FBI has conducted itself over time that we don't need the FBI. The American people don't need the FBI. It has nothing for us. It serves simply the Department of Justice in a very narrow sense and we don't need them. So that we need to start thinking like that. We need to start being aware of many of these arms of government.

Really, we don't need them. Like armed IRS agents. Do we really need armed IRS? No, we don't. The American people do not need that. We do not require that. No one was asking for that. And I, but specifically the FBI is, you know, I hate to use this term, but jump the shark.

I think they're over. Their credibility is extremely low. For the first hundred years of the country's existence, we didn't even have a Department of Justice. If the government had to sue somebody, they went out and hired a lawyer to do it. And who enforced the laws? Well, we didn't have 5,000 federal criminal laws. We had two. The other laws were enforced by the states. That was part of

Madison's genius is that the feds would not have a standing army, would not have a police department, would not be involved in law enforcement. After the Civil War, all of that changed. The Justice Department comes into existence, I think, in 1875 during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. And then that's when Congress starts writing laws, regulating everything under the sun from the amount of lobsters you can take out of the sea to how fast you can drive on a federal highway, to how much alcohol you can have in your blood, to how much lead can be in paint,

everything imaginable that they want to regulate. 5,500 federal criminal statutes. I do not believe there's a human being on the planet conversant with all of them. No, no, not at all. The FBI will enforce whatever their bosses tell them to enforce. Ritter actually said, the people that came to my house were zealous, but quiet and professional. I have no beef with them. My beef is with the people who dispatched them to me. That's right. Yeah.

It's a dangerous time for Americans. And I think if anybody follows the news in Great Britain or the UK, crackdowns on speech and social media of speech and our freedom of thought and our freedom of communication. They would like to see that here in the United States. And it'll come here. It's already starting to come here. So if Americans want a different future, they need to start exercising their liberties, appreciating them, exercising them on a daily basis. And really, if we can do anything, let's look at Scott's attitude and try to emulate that, because he's very brave against the little army, FBI army that they sent to his house to intimidate him and his family. And he stood up against that. he's standing up against that, and I think that's

something we need to, as a good takeaway, in addition to the fact that our rights are being destroyed. But we all have a responsibility to defend those rights. It doesn't matter if we're in the military or not. Every American, we have that responsibility, and we need to take it seriously because certainly the DOJ is taking it seriously. Their agenda is an anti-American agenda and they are implementing it. Wow. Oh, Karen Kwiatkowski, no matter what we talk about, it's a pleasure to hear your analysis. I'm actually optimistic for Scott. It's going to, you know, these things don't end overnight. Just going through everything they took is going to take the FBI and the DOJ months, and then they'll decide how they want to pursue the case from

there. But you have a great handle on it, my dear friend. Thank you very much for your time and your analysis, as always. We'll look forward to seeing you at your usual time next week. All the best, Karen. Thanks, Judge. Appreciate it. Of course. And thank you to Colonel Kwiatkowski for that great piece that she has on the FBI as Deep State, which you can get at judsonapp.com. Five o'clock this afternoon, Eastern Time, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Will There Ever Be a Palestine by Peaceful Means means. Justin Politano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.