Judging Freedom - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Scott Ritter and the State Dept.

Episode Date: June 7, 2024

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Scott Ritter and the State Dept.See 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, June 7th, 2024. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. I have a lot to ask you about concerning President Putin's warnings to the United States, President Zelensky's request to President Biden, apparently made in Paris or Normandy this weekend wanting permission to use American long-range weaponry to strike

Moscow, not just inside Russia, but Moscow, and President Putin's warnings and NATO's blase response, or what I would characterize as blase. But before we get there, I must ask you about our friend and colleague Scott Ritter. And I'm asking you because you were the chief of staff to the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Scott Ritter was approached at the JFK Airport with a proper ticket and a proper visa to fly to Istanbul, Turkey, and from Istanbul to St. Petersburg, Russia, when three border patrol agents stopped him and said, give us your passport under orders from the State Department. They had no warrant.

As far as we know, they had no probable cause or articulable suspicion of any wrongdoing. They didn't identify themselves and they didn't give him a receipt. Does the State Department of the United States of America do this? It has the power to do that because it maintains the consort function for the United States, which means it issues passports, visas, and such. But I can't, in my memory, recollect a time when it has used that power in such an egregious way. And I don't think it would use that power without coordination, at least in the deputies committee and probably in the principals committee, which would mean the vice president at a minimum and the national security advisor and the deputy national security advisor would know about it and okay it. I don't think the State Department would do it to an American citizen in such an abrupt and egregious fashion without that kind of coordination.

What would be the basis for it? I mean, I can think of at least three or four constitutional rights that were violated, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of travel, due process, can't take life, liberty, or property without due process of law? All of those things are pertinent. I'm not a legal scholar or a constitutional scholar, but I know enough about the Constitution to know those things are all pertinent. Yeah, but from their side, what conceivable basis would there be to stop a peaceful, unarmed American citizen from traveling to Russia?

If I were Scott, I would take it as a high compliment. I think he does. I would. Because it means, as Sir Nigel Rodley said to me one time, we're bothering the buggers. And Scott's really bothered. And so I would take that as a compliment. When they stopped me going to Cuba, I took it as a compliment because they were much more courteous. They were in civilian clothes,

and they identified themselves and showed me their IDs. But I felt pretty good, too, that I was having such an impact on U.S.-Cuba relations that they had to do that. And obviously, Scott being accosted the way he was, he's having a big impact. But they took the same oath that you did and I did when you joined the military and when I became a judge to uphold the Constitution. There must be something extraordinary in their thinking to trump his constitutional rights like that, or to think that they can trump his constitutional rights like that. to think that they can trump his constitutional rights like that? They do. That's the way these people think. And I've been there. I've been there and I've watched it happen. Powell actually fired the very first head of his diplomatic security

because the guy was an arrogant bastard. He came over from the Secret Service, and Powell got a whiff of him and knew a little bit about him in advance, but he made his point immediately as the director of State Department Security, and Powell fired him. David Carpenter fired him, and we got an Air Force Brigadier General from the Security Police in to run it, and he ran it fine after that. Did the State Department under Colin Powell, when you were chief of staff, ever, as far as you know and can recall, confiscate the passport of an American? I would have to go back and look at the consular affairs records, and I hesitate to say no. I don't recall it happening, but I hesitate to say no because those were some really, really tough times. We actually fired, and I thought it was an injustice, and I told Powell so. We fired the long-serving,

brilliant woman who is in charge of consular affairs because the White House told us we had to. And him giving in to that was, in my sense, an act of cowardice, moral cowardice. But I understood politically why the White House needed to set an example like that. After all, she'd been in charge of their policy. Their policy was essentially to let anybody in who walked up to the desk. I just have a few more questions, technical questions. If one goes to the Russian consulate in New York and obtains a visa, is that reported to the State Department? If they've asked for that sort of thing, it would be normally reported, yes, through channels, but it might take a while before it would get to anyone's attention. And it certainly wouldn't get to the secretary's attention unless they had flagged that person or flagged that country or flagged that process. And then it might get to the secretary or the deputy secretary, probably. But otherwise, it would come through normal channels, and you might not see that for days. Is there anything diplomatically offensive about Americans attending the St. Petersburg

Economic Conference and even making presentations there? Before you answer that, there are other Americans there, one of whom is going to be on a four o'clock, Larry Johnson. It's precisely what's implied by the very implications of what happened to Scott. It has no security or other implications that might be valid. What it has is political implications. It's a political threat because it's someone going somewhere that's the subject of almost war and objecting to it and pointing out all the idiosyncrasies, stupidities, insanities, and other things like that associated with it. So it's a political insult. And that, as you is it, and I'll let you use a stronger adjective if you want, knowing you, you probably will, God bless you, for President Biden to have

authorized the use of American offensive weaponry to be fired so as to land inside of Russia? Totally. And let me tell you one of the reasons why. I had dinner with the Cuban ambassador not too long ago because I'm a long-standing friend of the Cuban embassy because I helped President Obama in the track two diplomacy to try and get a rapprochement with Cuba to lift el bloqueo, the blockade we have on them. And I heard some things from him that were quietly said. And then, the day before yesterday, I heard something else. Let me frame this a little for you. My time in Havana, my time in the rest of Cuba, the last

10 years, almost every year, demonstrated to me that there was not a single Cuban, even the hardcore communists that are left, who really liked the Soviets, read Russians. Well, yesterday I heard that not only has Putin's entourage made an offer to Cuba, but Cuba has because, as its president said and its foreign minister said a week or two ago, you are turning us into Haiti, President Biden. Do you want another Haiti in the Caribbean? We've just gotten through the riots in Santiago de Cuba, for example, where the CIA was doing some wonderful work. And so I heard Putin has sent emissaries and maybe even they're going to introduce missiles, missiles into Cuba again. I hope this happens. I hope it happens.

I want to see the hypocrites in Washington deal with that. Wow. Well, that's startling, Colonel. I mean, do you really hope this happens? I mean, would they be real missiles with real serious warheads really aimed at American cities? They would be the same thing we're doing to them. They would probably be high-velocity missiles with conventional warheads. It'd be a tit-for- tat. You tell the Ukrainians that they can shoot your long-range missiles at my capital city. I'll put similar long-range missiles next to you and see what you say. We have often used the analogy of the Mexicans and the Chinese entering into some sort of a treaty whereby the Chinese could put offensive weaponry in Tijuana and name it a Dallas, but you're suggesting

something that sounds to me far more realistic and, of course, clearly, clearly reminiscent of 1962. Yes. I don't think the Chinese would put, well, let me back up. Well, that was just a wild hypothetical that some of us were using. Yeah, me too. I've done it before also, but more to demonstrate a kind of, you know, this is what we're doing to them. What if they did it to us? But our biggest trade partner right now is Mexico.

It just surpassed Canada. So Canada and Mexico are overwhelmingly our biggest trade partners. They've replaced China. They've replaced China, they've replaced Russia, all these other countries. So it's a situation that we have in this hemisphere where we are truly the genuine hegemon of our own hemisphere. And we're lucky because we have next to us really countries who really like to trade with us, like to do business with us, like to immigrate to us, even Canadians. And so we're lucky. But we've also treated certain countries in the hemisphere viciously and none more so than Cuba, 50 plus years of a blockade. That's an act of war.

Were Cuba possessed of the adequate armed forces, it could take us on and be perfectly legitimate in its doing so. But it doesn't have the armed forces to take on the United States. So this blockade being an act of war is irrelevant. We know it. So we blockade and we keep on bringing them to their knees. And so if Cuba were to see an opening with another country that would give them some leverage to negotiate some of that away, which we were trying to do under President Obama peacefully and making some progress, I think Cuba would be in its right to take that option. You use the word blockade. You don't literally mean a naval blockade like the one that was involved in 62. You're talking about a trade blockade. No, and that was very carefully fashioned and named a quarantine. So it would not be a

blockade because a blockade is an act of war. But what they were talking about in the executive committee at that time with respect to Cuba and the Russian missiles there was a real militarily enforced blockade. That is to say, you would ring it with ships and nothing would get through. What has in effect happened now with all the different legislation that's been thrown at Cuba to include the draconian sanctions that accompany being listed on the state sponsors of terrorist lists, which Obama took them off of. They haven't sponsored terrorism in 40 years. In fact, they really have never sponsored terrorism. But that's so draconian that it is the equivalent of an economic blockade.

And you don't need the ships because through your financial and economic system and your pressure on Europeans and South Americans and others, you're keeping Cuba from much any trade at all. Venezuela was saving them with heavy fuel oil, and other countries in South America were helping them out from time to time in exchange for doctors and nurses and so forth that they didn't have. And these doctors and nurses were going into the barrios, into the ghettos and delivering healthcare in Colombia and Venezuela and all over South America where their own doctors wouldn't go. Now they're not doing that because inflation has gotten so bad and their own economies have gotten so bad. So Cuba has nothing now, even with the blockade,

they have nothing. And he was right. The foreign minister and the president, they're right. We're turning them into another Haiti. I didn't realize we were going to go there, but you're a cornucopia of ideas and for me, questions. I have to go there. Did President Trump undo what you helped President Obama to do in order to open up Cuba so that people there could have better lives? Trump reversed almost everything we did. Okay. Now, let me make a quick qualification. As I told the foreign minister of Cuba, be careful. Trump does not give a whit about Cuba, but that means there'll be people around him who do care about Cuba who'll be giving their heads, and they will ruin you again. That's exactly what happened.

On Mexico, and this is a little off the wall, but I have to ask you, is Claudia Scheinbaum a CIA asset? I thought she was probably Mossad being the chief. Even worse. Exactly. The greater Zionists are everywhere. All right. Back to what I thought we would be discussing in the past 14 or 15 minutes, and that is President Putin's warning. Let's listen to what he said. He didn't like this question because the question asked him about nukes, and he didn't want to answer it, and he told the questioner he didn't like the question, but it's a profound answer.

Chris, number seven. There are always accusations flung at us that we are nuclear cyber-rattling, but am I the one asking the question about the possible nuclear war? You were the one to ask the question. You are pushing me towards this question, and then you'll say that I've been, you know, brandishing the nuclear truncheon. You know, this is a very grave subject. The U.S. is the only country to Our tactical nuclear weapons is 70, 75 kilotons, just the tactical nuclear weapons.

So let's not push the situation towards the point when even a threat is involved, let alone the use of nuclear weapons. For some reason, the West believes that Russia is never going to resort to that. But we've got the nuclear doctrine in place. Have a look at it. What does it say? It says that someone else's actions threaten our sovereignty or territorial integrity, then we believe we have the right to use all

the tools at our disposal. And no one should take that lightly or superficially. There needs to be a professional view of that. All the tools at our disposal. Does NATO, does the State Department of the United States take that seriously? Do they understand the man? I don't think we understand anyone anymore. But let me say one thing first, Judge.

I listened to that three times. All right. That was a very, very, if that came off the cuff, I suspect he had rehearsed it. But if it came off the cuff, it was brilliant. And if he rehearsed it, it was brilliant. Very articulate. That's a statesman. That's a diplomat. That's a real leader.

I don't care what you think about his morals or his ethics or his totalitarian aspects. That's a smart man who's thinking every Russian word he utters. I suspect he's even thinking about how it's going to be translated into English. Very smart man. And he said it precisely the way he should have said it under the circumstances we have put him in. Now, Admiral Kirby was in France with the president today and was interviewed by my friend and former colleague at Fox News, Martha McCallum. And he said, we have evolved as the war has evolved. That's not the point, but I'm going to run this tape for you. It's about a minute long. I really think Admiral Kirby is almost literally as bad as Baghdad. Bob, he says in this tape, you'll hear it. I'm going to tell

you what I want to highlight before you hear it. The Russian economy is a war economy and not doing well. This is contrary to all the economic evidence we've seen. But I'll let you listen. Number 12. We have evolved our support to Ukraine as the war has evolved. The needs of the Ukrainians on the battlefield have changed and they are still changing. And we are trying to stay apace with that. That's why we're in constant conversations with them. I would also, you know, want to remind people that everything Ukraine is

getting is in concert with them and meeting their needs, their asks. And we're trying to, again, stay apace of that. But I think it's also the last thing I'll say, and then I promise I'll, and the answer is, take a look at what Russia has suffered. And the president alluded to some of this in his speech, more than 350,000 casualties. A million young people leaving the country because they don't want to be there anymore. An economy that's basically a war economy and not doing that well. Russia has suffered a lot at the hands of Ukraine and because they have invested so much of their energy and effort into this war. And not just the United States, but 50 some odd nations can take some credit for that because we helped arm and help train and help resource the Ukrainian soldiers that are fighting

so bravely. I think it's hogwash, but I'm happy to hear what you have to say, please, Colonel. Well, my first remark is to repeat a previous remark and say Admiral Kirby needs to go back to sailing ships, except he probably sink them. So I won't say that. The war has changed, he says. First point. You bet it's changed. You bet it's changed. Precisely the way I and other smart military professionals said it would change. Ukraine is losing big time. Second, we're giving them aid in concert with their needs. Okay, their needs are now that they are losing astronomically badly. So what are you going to give them? Nuclear weapons? Third, Russia has suffered. I've got the economic reports. I've got the graphs. I've seen what China and India are doing for Russia's economy. I've seen what 4.6 billion people in the world

who are still trading with Russia are doing for the economy. I've seen the figures on GDP dedicated to defense. That's being done for preparation. That's an economy that is looking a lot like ours was looking in 40 and 41 when we suddenly turned to it in order to get ready to be the arsenal of democracy. There's a class of Russians in Moscow who often say to each other, thank you, Joe Biden. Yes. Because the sanctions have forced the Russians to develop an economic independence and prosperity beyond what they ever thought they could. I got to play another clip. I know it's going to raise your blood pressure a little bit. It's Admiral Kirby again. But the essence of this is that Putin has stalled out. Number 13. I do think it's important to remember they haven't made much progress for all the effort

and the ballyhooing about what they were doing or trying to do at Kharkiv. They basically stalled out once they hit the first line of Ukrainian defenses. That was kind of it. And now they're reassessing, we think, about what they might do next. So they still can be within range of Kharkiv. I don't want to diminish that. That's why we're giving the Ukrainians permission to strike across border at imminent threats. But they have largely stalled out. And Mr. Putin has achieved none of his strategic objectives. Material misrepresentations he's making. He's just proving what I said, but in spades, he needs to go back to the water. I'm not even sure he'd do any good on the water where it's flat and the wind sometimes whip the waves up, but you don't have the kind of things that you

have in ground warfare. You look at the situation and you say, okay, yeah, maybe in one little aspect, you're right. The Russians seem to be somewhat paused right now. That's because Putin has said again and again and again, I'm ready to talk. I'm ready to sit down. You are going to lose the diplomacy that takes place there probably, but you need to be willing to take that chance for a ceasefire and a peace agreement. And I'm not going to do anything other than invest the land that I've taken until I'm sure that you're not going to do anything against me. That's my deal. We can negotiate. It's over. Now, if you think it's not and you want to keep escalating, go back to his words that we just articulated and talked about.

So one more tick up on your blood pressure. Shortly after Tony Blinken, Secretary Blinken, excuse me, announced that President Biden had approved the use by the Ukrainians, and we know this involves Americans because there are secret codes involved that only Americans have access to uh to fire American weaponry uh into uh Russia um Russian foreign minister Lavrov said this number one we have shown that we will not put up with this, and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government in this

territory, which they wanted to take for themselves. And they were counting on it. But as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before. These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections. The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed.

That's the consequence of no diplomacy. It is. Tony Blinken, Secretary Blinken, refusing to take Foreign Minister Lavrov's phone calls. Which is just an absurdity. How many times did Colin Powell talk to his Russian adversary, or with what regularity? On their cell phones, much to the chagrin of the National Security Agency, almost every day. Good. No, but to be honest for a minute.

He would get calls from the DCI. He would get calls from tenants. You got to quit doing that, Colt. I'm doing diplomacy, George, something you don't know anything about. But my point is, this is what happens when Blinken is not doing his job. You get this kind of threat. He's scared, Judge. He's scared.

He's frightened. He knows he's out of his element, certainly with Sergei, but with Wang Yi, too. So the two prominent security threats, if you will, to the United States, ultimately, their diplomats are so superior to Tony Blinken that he won't even take their phone calls or talk to them. That's what it boils down to. And I'm afraid that it probably boils down to that with respect to Putin and Biden and Xi and Biden, ultimately. We are outclassed, Judge. We're outclassed. And it's a dramatically bad situation for us because we are outclassed. That's when you go to things like nuclear weapons, is when you get completely outclassed diplomatically,

and you nonetheless hoist yourself out there on that spit over the ocean, and you look down and you say, uh-oh, I don't have anywhere to go. You've got yourself in a mess. And we are in such a mess over both Ukraine and Gaza for different reasons, but such a, look at this ceasefire deal that was going to go down in Gaza. Netanyahu has used it to tie Joe Biden's hands behind his back. And he's got his own problems in his own right wing of the Likud that he's tied up and put in handcuffs to by using the very thing that he said he was going to do good with to Joe Biden. We're just outclassed, Judge. We're outclassed across the board.

Chris, do we have the tape of Admiral Kirby? Sorry, Colonel, saying it's an Israeli idea, it's an Israeli idea, it's an Israeli idea. While you're looking for it. That proposal, an Israeli proposal, has been given to Hamas. It was done on Thursday night, our time. We're waiting for an official response from Hamas. We would note that publicly Hamas officials came out and welcomed this proposal. This was an Israeli proposal. We have every expectations that if Hamas, we would note that publicly Hamas officials came out and welcomed this proposal. This was an Israeli proposal. We have every expectations that if Hamas agrees to the proposal, as was transmitted to them, an Israeli proposal, that Israel would say yes.

Cy Hersh says it wasn't an Israeli proposal, that it's a political stunt by the president of the United States. And Netanyahu was acting like, what are you crazy? You want my government to dissolve if I embrace this thing? That Kirby presentation there reminded me, Judge, of when Condi Rice was asked about the 16 words in President George W. Bush's State of the Union address. Those words that said, we've heard from the British that Saddam Hussein has been seeking uranium in Niger. And when Condi got caught, she said three times, if I had known that the director of the CIA, if I had known that George Tenet, if I had known that the CIA disagreed with that, he never would have said it. That's Kirby. If I down Israel. Divide Israel, Israel. Wow. Well, we've occupied you long enough. This is one of the more fascinating conversations I've ever had on this program, Colonel, from what you said about Cuba to Condi Rice to George Bush to

George Tenet to Vladimir Putin to Joe Biden to Tony Bl, to George Tenet, to Vladimir Putin, to Joe Biden, to Tony Blinken, to Sergey Lavrov. Your insight and your derived from your great personal experience and your intellect and your personal courage is extraordinary. It is a joy for us to have you on the show. And I'm personally very grateful. And I know because I can see the numbers and I can read what people are saying. The viewers are as well. Thank you so much, Colonel, and have a great weekend. You too. And let me ask you a favor. If they come through my door, will you defend me? Yes. I'll be your shield. I'll take a bullet for you, Colonel. God love you. Take care.

Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Wow. More fodder for the Intel Roundtable. Ray McGovern is, where he usually is, Larry Johnson, still in Russia, both of them live here at four o'clock Eastern today. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.