Judging Freedom - COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is Hegseth Competent?

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Is Hegseth Competent?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 27th, 2025. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel, always a pleasure. Colonel, can we agree that sensitive operational information about a military attack is secret, whether it is formally characterized as classified or not? No question about it. In fact, I would say as a soldier, as a matter of fact, as any member of the armed forces, it is the most delicate and sensitive information you could possibly leak. We are talking, of course, about the information posted on a chatting app by the Secretary of State, which included the nature of the attack, the equipment to be used, the time it was going to happen, which could only have

come from plans drawn up secretly, quite appropriately secretly, by military commanders and presented to him. This isn't something he made up out of thin air. Let me give you a real example of that kind of information. George Tenet was leaning into the Secretary of State in his conference room on the top floor of the CIA out at Langley. And the Secretary of State was insisting, Colin Powell, that he be allowed to use a certain piece of intelligence in his presentation at the United Nations.

Tennant was objecting strenuously to it. Tennant finally used the argument he knew would resonate with Colin Powell. He said, Mr. Secretary, this is almost a direct quote from memory, but my memory is pretty good on this. Mr. Secretary, if you reveal that information and we do put troops on the ground in Iraq, it will endanger their lives in a fundamental way. And the secretary scratched it. That's how the information that secretary Hedgeseth posted if in the hands of the wrong

people capable of impairing the lives of United States military personnel under Hedgeseth's command. Just think of the fact that he gave out some of the times on target and the routing and the type of ordinance and airplanes and such. Now thankfully, thankfully, Al-Ansar is probably not the Houthi, so probably not got access. They might in the future, to the kind of significant counterintelligence or whatever means you might want to call it, that would pick that up, sift it, and then apply it to actually bring damage to the people doing the attack. That's the fortunate thing here. The time lapse was too short, and the fact that the Houthis are probably not that sophisticated, that helped. That kept the

information from being damaging. Here's what Secretary Heggs, he's given a number of statements, but here's what he said when asked if war plans were texted. He has repeatedly said nothing was classified. I guess that means he didn't bother to classify it. But we all know that certain things are secret by their nature,

whether they've been formally classified or not. And among those secret things are attack plans. Oh, but why did you call it attack plans? Let's listen to this and look at his body. Imagine if you had released this kind of information on the battlefield in Ukraine, where the Russians have the instantaneous capability to take advantage of it. Faster. Watch his body language, Colonel. Chris, number 13.

Nobody's texting war plans. I noticed this morning out came something that doesn't look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans because they know it's not war plans. There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information. Is that hogwash? From what I have heard and what I have actually seen in our own press, yes, it's absolute hogwash.

It's obfuscation to try and cover the fact that this small group of the principals committee made a grievous error. You of course have experienced the highest of security clearances and conversations in which you participated. Did the cavalier nature of this surprise you, or is that standard operating procedure when deciding who to kill? Inside the small group, or even in the principals committee itself, not in the statutory NSC normally, you will hear this kind of conversation quite frequently. It's not so much banter as it is an attempt to relieve the pressure on the people having to make some pretty critical decisions.

I can't say that for this group, but that's my experience of it. The deputies committee, for example, just below the principals, is a similar environment and the deputies is probably where the most interesting and most strategic conversations go on. That said, I've got to say that you're looking at, and we look at this like what a bunch of amateurs. Okay, that's a fair characterization. But let me tell you, we haven't had a national security advisor since Brent Scowcroft.

We have not. We just pick people to be in this job. People who have no credentials for it. I would say H.R. McMaster had no credentials for it, even though he was a general officer. The last one I would say was really good was Brent Scowcroft. Brent Scowcroft was one of the most brilliant lieutenant generals, strategist, thinker, collegial operator in the principals and the statutory committee I've ever seen. Now he had H.W. Bush over him, a very experienced president. We haven't had one of those since H.W. Bush and so it made a whole heck of a lot of

difference but the decision-making was so much more methodical, so much more had one of those since H.W. Bush. And so it made a whole heck of a lot of difference. But the decision making was so much more methodical, so much more strategic, careful, and nothing like this probably would have ever happened. I can't say it wouldn't happen, but it probably never would have happened. I think this just reeks of amateur hour. I want you to look at a clip that we're going to play

for you of Congressman Crowe, who was a former Navy SEAL, grilling Director Gabbard. And the question I'm going to ask you is if you think that Director Gabbard and Director Director Ratcliffe lied under oath when they said there were no battle plans, war plans, attack plans, whoever you want to characterize them on the texting or aired to the texting group. Chris Cutt, number 10. Director Gabbard, I want to direct your attention again to the text chain where it says, just confirmed with CENTCOM we are a go for mission launch. Does that indicate to you that there is about to be a military operation?

Yes. Director Gabbard, earlier in this hearing, we heard about the DOD's classification standards. I want to now turn my attention to your classification standards. You're the Director of National Intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence Classification Guide says, quote, information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing for an attack, end quote, is to be classified as top secret. Are you familiar with that? Yes. Director Gabbard have the Houthis indicated an ability to shoot down

American aircraft? Yes. They have in fact done so haven't they? Yes. Including MQ-9 Reapers haven't they? That's correct. And that was one of the systems used in the attack recently that's the subject of this discussion, is it not? Correct. Well, she looks like she'd rather be anyplace else in the world than there. Why did she or can you possibly explain to us, Colonel, how she and CIA Director Ratcliffe in the prior day could have denied that military plans had been posted in that chat. Well, they got together and they made their stories sink. Same thing any administration would do, but they happened to sink terribly. The basic line was it wasn't an operational war plan. It wasn't an O plan 5001 or no plan

5000 or any old plan or a con plan or any other kind of formal war plan. It was operational data Anyone who thinks that's not classified is smoking some cheap stuff Colonel if you define espionage as the federal statutes do, the willful or negligent failure to retain in a secure environment national security secrets, did the Secretary of State, excuse me, excuse me, did the Secretary of Defense commit espionage? John Kiriakou's judge put him in jail, as I recall, for about three years for three charges under the same act, one of which was very similar. About 15 minutes before we went on air, the attorney general of the United States announced to my dismay there will be no FBI criminal investigation of what happened in this chat.

So the DOJ, which has suffered egregiously, and the FBI, which has suffered egregiously and the FBI which has suffered egregiously in the minds of the public shoots itself in the foot again. Agreed and I just hope that without even a spur of this sort of accountability that it doesn't happen again. But this kind of recklessness and this kind of amateur hour seems to me to permeate the cabinet of Donald Trump. And I think that's a shame because he should be better served. But when you pluck people, look at Waltz. Waltz came from Florida. He'd been a congressman. I have to submit that the modern Congress bought and paid for as it mostly is, is not the place you want to pluck a national security advisor from. Or for that matter, probably you don't

want to pluck a cabinet officer from there. And I would go on to say that Marco Rubio to this point, although I hate to say this because I had some hope that he would be better, has proven my point. The word inside the beltway is that Marco Rubio is miserable and feels that he has been co-opted by the president's choice of Steve Witkoff as the lead, um, negotiator in the hotspots, uh, in the hotspots around the world. Part of that judge is the fact that when you watch Witkoff, as much as I in the hot spots around the world. Part of that judge is the fact that when you watch Witkoff, as much as I think he's operating from a businessman's perspective rather than a diplomat's,

he's mild mannered, he's well-spoken, he completes his sentences, he's not diatribe-like. Right. He's the one member of the administration that seems to be an adult. I agree with you. Even though I was initially taken aback by his having that job, I guess he's got a I guess the president gave him a top secret security clearance. The president give that to anybody wants even though Mr. Witkoff, of course, does not have a government job and was not confirmed by the Senate.

I can understand Marco Rubio's feelings. Colin Powell told the president of the United States, I do not want any special envoys. And the president looked at him and said, you don't like special envoys? And he said, I'm the secretary of state. Wow, good for him. I can't see Secretary Rubio getting away with speaking to President Trump that way. He may say it or he may think it, but I can't see him getting away with it.

You mentioned Mike Walsh. Chris, play the back and forth between Mike Walsh and Laura Ingraham. Now, she backs off a little bit, but it looked like she was about to bore into him about how this happened. Tell me if you think his explanation, which is a little silly, is credible.

So your staffer did not put his contact information. No, no, no. But how did it end up in your phone? That's what we're trying to figure out. But that's a pretty big problem. That's what we've got the best technical minds, right? That's disturbing. And that's where, I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact

where it was said one person and then a different phone number. But you've never talked to him before, so how's the number on your phone? I mean, I'm not an expert on any of this, but it's just curious. How's the number on your phone? Well, if you'm not an expert on any of this, but it's just curious, how's the number on your phone? Well, if you have somebody else's contact, and then somehow it gets sucked in. Oh, someone sent you that contact. Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that

wasn't on the chat that you thought was on the phone? So the person that I thought was on there was never on there. It was this guy. Who was that person supposed to be? Look, Laura, I take responsibility. I built the group. Okay.

You know of this fellow, Jeffrey Goldberg, and you know from your years in the State Department how Vice President Cheney used Goldberg to promote a propagandistic view of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think this was intentional? Do you think it was a PR stunt? Do you think it was sabotage? There's a piece in the Guardian claims that MI6 pulled this off to embarrass humiliate Trump because the Brits hate him or fear him. Let me say first of all that comment that he made initially about everybody out

there, everybody out there. Everybody out there is not the national security advisor to the president of the United States, Mr. Walz. So, that was a very bad start. I've heard all manner of things, Judge. I don't have any respect for Jeffrey Goldberg, never have had, ever since I learned he was an IDF member, a prison guard, took a look at his book. And ever since I had to deal with Judy Miller at the New York

Times over the Iraq war, and I know what Israel does within our security complex to create imbroglios like this, to create little episodes like this. Normally they're created in order for them to get pressure-bearing data on the President of the United States or some other principal in the administration. That's why they happen. So I'm not going to stand back and say that there isn't some

of that going on here. Colonel, is the United States preparing for war with Iran? I don't think so. I think Trump is doing his standard thing. We can go back to the first administration and Kim Jong-un when he was going to bring hell on North Korea. He builds these precipices of threats and braggadocio, and then from that he commences negotiations or one hopes he will commence

negotiations and frankly from what I'm hearing from Tehran they're very receptive they're not receptive to the pressure in fact he may be overdoing that a bit but they are very receptive to going ahead and trying another deal which I find astonishing because they have been ripped apart on the first deal. We have to look at that first deal. That first deal was an agreement between the Perm 5 in Germany, all of those members in Germany, and the world really in terms of international law, and it was codified in the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran that President Obama affected. It doesn't matter whether the Senate ratified it or not to Iran. Iran is looking at a state doing this, just like they are, state-to-state relations.

And we reneged. And the current president is the one who reneged. So I would have, unless I was really under duress, and I think they are, I think our sanctions are putting them under duress, I think they are I think our sanctions are putting them under duress I would never come back to negotiate with Washington again. I'd be like Putin They're the most implicit the sons of bitches on the face of the earth why negotiate with them. Hmm Let's go back to The signal of conversation or Mike waltz and pete haggseth competent

The latter I think not the former judgment still out, but thus far, my tendency is to say no, he's a, he's in the lineup that we've had. So you know, why Reagan had six judge Reagan had six because he didn't think national security advisor should be president. He kept his first national security advisor from even darkening his door. And when he got to Powell and Carlucci at the end, he finally found some men who actually wanted to work for him and not for themselves. And he allowed them to actually be fairly significant in his administration. But he went through his first four national security

advisors because he didn't like the position. It's not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. It's not a really hard constitutional position. It's just an indented position and he didn't like it. And frankly, I don't blame him. What does the national security advisor do besides to set up these group chats? Well, if he's Alexander,he, he goes out and says, I'll take care of everything. I'm in charge here.

Yeah, makes an ass of himself. Or if he's Condi Rice, instead of disciplining the system like Brent Scowcroft did, the ideal national security advisor has one job and one job alone. And he never goes to the press or rarely does so. He never gives a public face to himself or rarely does so. He disciplines the national security decision making process, that's their job.

Condi Rice started out doing that, looked pretty good at it. And then she figured out very quickly that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were gonna win most of the arguments and that Bush's predisposition was towards them. And if she wanted to be Secretary of State, she had to go toward them. And she did. And she fought Powell all the way. She got what she wanted.

She got Secretary of State. And probably she wouldn't have if she'd taken Powell's position from time to time. That's the kind of national security buzzer. You do not need well today the national security advisor if you look at Jake Sullivan that Sullivan probably was on the Sunday morning talk shows more than Anthony Blinken and Certainly Mike Waltz is on more than Marco Rubio who speaks for the administration And Powell been alive. He would have been calling me and saying,

you know, Jake ought to get his ass off the phone. I mean, off the TV screen. That that's just not something the national security vice president should do because you're you're surping the president's prerogatives when you do that. Now, Biden allowed him. That shows how what a novice Biden was to the presidency. It's not what you should be doing.

Colonel, big picture now, not the anger or disappointment or fear or political criticism of the moment, but big picture. Is this a big deal? Does this reveal the type of warts, human warts that Donald Trump should know about and do something about? If it's fundamental, and this is not enough to judge that by because this is a very new administration, a very new team, but if it repeats itself, I'd get worried if I were the president. In fact, I'd get rid of somebody or maybe somebody's plural. It doesn't look good and it doesn't look good for the president and it's dangerous. Can Donald Trump say no to Bibi Netanyahu if Bibi says we want to attack Tehran and we need your cover?

I think he can. I think you can. I think he may be and this is one place where he may be right that die tribe he gave was absolute nonsense saying there's never been such a serious president of the United

States as Donald Trump. You forget George Washington. You forget Franklin Roosevelt. You forget Abraham Lincoln has been a few but I do think Trump wants a deal. I do think he wants a deal. I don't think he wants a war. Colonel, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. You look very good today, sir.

Thank you. I feel old. You don't sound or look old. I'll tell you that. Take care. And the forward you wrote on Scott Ritter's book, I went to hell is a fabulous, fabulous piece and manifestation of all the lessons you've learned in all the years of your service. And I hope that when people read Scott's

book, they start with that forward that you wrote. Judge, I'll leave you with a note of optimism. I gave a speech in Berlin via Zoom last week, and I'm getting reports back similar. And I was trying to do that for the Europeans, especially the Germans. I was trying to tell them how dangerous this world is. Thank you, Colonel. All the best. Thank you. We'll see you again next week.

And coming up later today at three 30 this afternoon, professor John Mearsheimer tomorrow, Friday, four o'clock, the boys intelligence community round table. And after the boys at 5.00 PM, midnight in Yemen, Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Paul Tanner for Judging Freedom. You