Judging Freedom - Col_ Tony Shaffer: Ukraine and Misguided Congressional Republicans

Episode Date: January 14, 2024

Col_ Tony Shaffer: Ukraine and Misguided Congressional RepublicansSee 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 Thursday, January 11th, 2024. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back. Good morning, Judge. Thank you for having me. I always enjoy our conversations. Thank you for joining us. Is Ukraine on its last legs?

And if it is, I think you're probably going to say yes, but if it is, how insane is it for the Speaker of the House of Representatives to say, well, and by the way, if we get a border wall, we'll get you your 68 billion. Billion, President Zelensky. So this is why we have the most expensive and bloated defense on the planet. Let's just take a step back from Ukraine and look at this in context.

We have a budget. They're about to sign out for $800 plus billion. Now think about this. The defense budget is over half of the overall federal budget and not by a little bit, by like near a hundred billion dollars to your point. So what are we getting for that exactly. And, you know, is that 61 billion out of that nearly a trillion in our interest for any strategic goal? I don't know, because I sit down and I was driving somewhere yesterday, and I was listening to NPR, to National Public Radio. And one of the guys was from Georgetown. I couldn't catch his name, but he was even saying on the left that, gee, we've got this really expensive budget, and we really don't know where it all goes. And so even if you have the left admitting that, gee, we spend all this money, we don't know where it goes, and it doesn't actually give us anything, why are we doing it?

And the answer is, for the same reason the speaker is saying, oh, we'll give you the 61 billion, politics. No one has sat down. And the other thing the NPR guy said, which I've said over and over, we need a grand strategy. I've never asked you about this, Judge. I don't know how you feel about it, but I'm a Reagan guy. I was a fan of the fact that no matter how you felt about Reagan, at least they knew what they were trying to achieve relating to national security. Reagan said it very clearly. Beat the Russians. Beat the Soviets. You know, they lose. We win. And they set out the Pentagon enterprise to focus on. And I've talked to John Lehman. I've talked to the secretary of the army to Stone.

I was mentored and friends with Bud McFarland before he passed, God rest his soul. They had a plan and they stuck to that plan pretty closely. There's no such unifying concept for the budgets today. Literally, it's spending as much money as the enterprise wants and hoping for the best and hope is not a strategy so let's let me interject here your your colleague your former colleague karen kutkowski claims it's even worse than that because it contributes to uh to debt of course no i agree we don't actually have the cash we have to borrow it sometimes we borrow it from the chinese well walter my our our friend walter jones used to lecture me on you know the, the late Walter Jones, God rest his soul.

Walter used to say this very thing that you're saying. It's like, yeah, this is not giving us any advantage by the fact that, you know, your son and his son, his son's son is going to have to pay for this because we are not. There is no link. We should have a separate show on this, Judge. Right. There is no relation to appropriation and spending. Walter Jones was a very courageous libertarian Republican congressman who represented a district that had a lot of people in the military but understood what military waste was. I live in his district now.

I did. He pointed out to you and me, and this is the open knowledge, about 900, nobody even knows the exact number. It's somewhere between 825 and 903 foreign military installations. There isn't a human being on the planet who can name all of them. There isn't a human being on the planet who can justify all the money that's spent there. But Karen points out, as do you. In fact, Colonel McGregor says the same thing. There is no strategy. It's just spend, spend, spend, reward, reward, reward the military industrial complex, spread the military industrial complex

around so that's a lot of people working for it in as many congressional districts as possible so they can put pressure on the members of Congress to vote these huge budgets. And we know that if we send $5 billion in equipment to Israel, we are sending equipment we already have, but an order goes out for $5 billion to replace that. So the military industrial complex gains immediately. And so, and Eisenhower warned us about this military industrial congressional complex. He talked about it.

So I'm, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I guess a Reagan, Eisenhower Republican, I guess for lack of a better term, but this is a long way getting back to Ukraine.

So within the context of this loaded $888 billion boon for the defense industry, there's no focus, there's no strategy, and that links it to the unrestricted spending on Ukraine, because there's no plan for Ukraine. So the larger no plan for the strategic defense of the United States or our global interests links directly to the lack of interest or lack of focus or ability to understand what our objectives are for Ukraine. So what's another 61 billion? You know, as Nikki Haley, I think as Nikki Haley said in her, whenever debates, well, what's, what's a billion dollars? Well, that attitude is why we're here now. That's why we have these bloated budgets because of people like her who just, yeah, what's a billion dollars? Well, a billion dollars is a lot of money in most people's. All right. But in this case,

there's very little that they can do with it other than steal it. They don't have the manpower. They are utterly defeated. President Zelensky has stopped going around with his tin cup because nobody's putting any cash in it anymore. Right. So why are our Republican friends, and thank God some of our Republican friends are resisting this, in the House of Representatives willing to go along with what Mike Johnson said? Well, I'd like to believe, I don't know if it's true, I'd like to believe Johnson recognizes that this is a point of pain for the Biden administration. So this is what's going on. The Biden administration is trying to kick the can down the road.

I don't think they're going to make it, by the way, but they're trying to kick to promote and project a narrative that Ukraine's going to win. They're in the process of winning, and it's just a matter of days before they overcome the Russians. Even now, even now, they're trying to downplay everything you and I are talking about. And the reason they're downplaying is because of domestic politics. This is what Joe Biden is trying to preclude. They're trying to preclude another Afghanistan withdrawal debacle, because this is going to be a second debacle that cannot be hidden. And so what they're trying to do, Judge, is trying to build enough cash in the system so they can pay and get things through at least till the summer, maybe the fall, to make sure that the failure of U.S. policy doesn't reflect badly on Biden. It's not going to work. They're not going to make it.

This money will be borrowed. The principal on it will never be repaid. But the grandchildren of the people listening to us now who are americans or american taxpayers uh will be paying interest on this for god knows how long we're still paying interest on the debt uh from world war one it's uh it's just reprehensible uh that they would do this and gee aren't you glad republicans took over the house of representatives tony is aren't you happy that took over the House of Representatives, Tony? Aren't you happy that they stopped all the profit and spending? Deal Mike Johnson cut.

And I'm sorry, folks, for watching this. They've heard me rant about this three or four times now in the past couple of days. The deal Mike Johnson cut is almost to the dollar the same deal that Kevin McCarthy cut with Nancy Pelosi that got him kicked out of the job. Right. Look, I could go through, you and I could go through as a team. I think it'd be fun to go through every line item and cut at least two thirds of them because look, this whole issue regarding funding this new green deal, it's all a sham. Trump correctly calls it out for what it is. It's, it's, it's grifting. It's green grifting.

And then the legacy programs that go back to, you mentioned it, World War I. We have things on the books that we're still paying for as a legacy that are probably in some congressman's district who would scream to high heaven if you cut it because it affects his constituency and his ability to be reelected. This is an evil tapestry of overlapping and often expensive interests that we fund with no regard to the future. And I think this is something, and by the way, as a separate note, I wish we could find a lawyer, and you're a judge, so you probably know a few, who could sue the federal government over the fact that at this point, taxes are simply harassment to citizens because the government

doesn't need the money. They will simply print it if they need it. Therefore, because the moment they detached, in my judgment, the moment they detached appropriating money from spending, it invalidated any need for taxation. Thereby becomes redundant and taxpayers simply become harassed by having to pay taxes. Well, right now, half, well, let's see, let me make sure I have my numbers right. Right now, half, well, let's see. Let me make sure I have my numbers right. Right now, two times as much is spent from cash that is borrowed than cash that is received from the IRS. Yes, it's reprehensible. You mentioned Secretary Austin. Of course, I have to ask you about this because you're a career military guy.

So we're going to play some tape for you. First is General Pat Ryder saying, well, nobody knew about it, but now we know and we make sure it won't happen again. It's just absurd. This guy's worse than Kirby. But then we're going to play a timeline of events, which is pretty damning for the Secretary of Defense. So first eight and then following it immediately, Chris, cut nine. As soon as we had this information to make available, we provided it. We got it this afternoon and provided it literally minutes before I stepped in here.

Nobody at the White House knew that Secretary Austin had prostate cancer until this morning, and the president was informed immediately after we were. In early December, that's one month ago, Austin learned he had prostate cancer. On December 22nd, he underwent a prostatectomy, the removal of part or all of the prostate under general anesthesia, and transferred his authorities to his deputy. On January 1, he was admitted to the ICU at Walter Reed with what his doctors would diagnose as a urinary tract infection and fluid in his abdomen. On January 2, he again transferred his authorities to his deputy, but didn't say why.

And on January 4, he informed the National Security Council and his deputy about the hospitalization. And finally, January 5th, he makes his first public statement. And at no point during that entire process, Amna, did he say or admit that he had prostate cancer. What happened to you as a lieutenant colonel if you had treated your superiors with such a wall of silence for such a wall of silence for such a length of time about such a serious matter? Well, I would have been literally brought up on charges, literally. I mean, you know, you and I know I've had a love-hate relationship with my chains of command in the past. Right. But it's not over deception and dishonesty. No, no. And

this is the issue. So let's break this down for a while. And by the way, full disclosure, I know both men. I know Pat, Pat Ryder. I've worked with Pat on previous projects, Chain of Command, when he was General Dunford's, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dunford's PAO. So Pat's in a difficult position. So let me defend Pat real quick. I believe I like Pat.

But there's no excuse for the Austin piece. And I know Austin, Austin, you read Operation Dark Heart Judge, you know, you've read my book, right? Austin is one of the two generals I worked for and one of the three generals I worked for in Afghanistan. He was commander. I was the chief clandestine guy for when he and McChrystal were there in 2003, 2004. Anyway, on forward, Lloyd Austin has been over-promoted by a factor of five since

he was a Colonel. He was a, he wasn't, you know, I'll let people judge for themselves in the read book, what kind of a general he was when I worked for him. But at this point there, and by the way, that second report you mentioned about timeline, it's not correct. There were actually periods in December where first off, nobody checked on Austin. There was no chatter between Joe Biden and Lloyd Austin, which everybody should be frightened by. Again, I'm a Reagan guy. I know for a fact that John Lehman, Chris Lehman, Bud McFarland, they were all chattering all the time. They were, and this is before cell phones or texting this is in the 80s so the fact that you have the the largest most expensive enterprise on the planet the pentagon not actually in regular and sustained contact with the guy in charge joe

biden makes me question what exactly is going on and this is by law by by law, they're doing a review now. This is a memo, came out 8 January, a couple days ago, review of notification process for assumption of functions and duties of the Secretary of Defense. Are you kidding me? We're three years into the administration and just now you're figuring out there's a responsibility to notify? So, and it says here correctly, Title 10, which is the defense authorization set of laws, what's normally called traditional military activities, anything George Washington did, this covered pretty much under Title 10. It says, and it does actually stipulate within the law,

that certain military weapon systems, nuclear weapons, cannot be un-overseen for a minute, not a minute, because these things are basically, even now, despite the Cold War being done, we still have our finger on the nuclear trigger. I'm not here to judge it. I'm just telling you how it is. And so that finger on the nuclear trigger has to make sure that the guy who has his finger on the trigger is ready to pull it. For at least three weeks, there was nobody at the trigger, and nobody actually knew how to get to the trigger if you had to do something. I'm not saying we should go to nuclear war. I'm saying this was a major lack of authority. The picture you're painting is a very, very serious one,

and one of serious dereliction of duty. No wonder he offered to resign. One wonders why he did this. He's a career, a military guy, but I don't want to speculate about what was in his brain. I want to know about the dangers. So when the deputy secretary of defense sat in on cabinet meetings and didn't know that her boss was incapacitated. She was just told he wants you to go. Did she have the authority, the finger on the nuclear triggers and not know it? Well, two things. First off, she was actually in Puerto Rico on leave.

There was several, there was a cascade of failures here. So secondly, when Austin went down, his chief of staff was out sick. So the chief of staff apparently not being there didn the chief of staff, apparently not being there, didn't bother to notify anybody. It's like, yeah, you know, it's like Chris. Chris being your guy and like, you know, you can't make the show. Then Chris says, well, I'm not going to, you know, I'm sick. I'm not going to do anything.

So everybody here is static instead of your show. Well, that's what happened here. There was complete static because Miss Hicks, Catherine Hicks, who was the deputy, the undersecretary of defense, actually was in Puerto Rico on the beach apparently. I don't know if she was on the beach or not, but she was in Puerto Rico. She did not have any of the required and necessary technology communications tools necessary to be fully integrated with the nuclear enterprise. He couldn't have done anything. You can't actually oversee the activities of the strategic nuclear forces in Minot, North Dakota, from a beach in Puerto Rico. It's not possible.

I don't know what the president knows, and I don't know what the National Security Council knows, but no one has revealed publicly what you just did, how dangerous this situation was. He really should resign and be replaced with someone, A, who's in better health. Yes. I don't know if his health is better. I've said this. Is, but he has a better sense of duty and responsibility. Guy was a four-star general, and he doesn't understand the significance of telling your boss, I'm going to be under under the knife and out of it for 10 days you better give the nuclear codes to somebody else

and somebody who's not on a beach or in a hotel in puerto rico right so to extend that point just a little bit sure um the fact that that that that he austin didn't actually have the the the the wherewithal to talk about the fact it was cancer. Remember, this whole thing was a lie. Oh, it's elective. It's not elective. It's cancer. And so I think, again, Austin was trying to downplay the severity.

And by the way, I think maybe that's how they wanted to go with messaging, saying, oh, it's just elective. It wasn't a big deal. It's a big deal. And any time you go under general anesthesia, I don't think I've ever gone under general anesthesia, but I've seen people do it. My son had to do it when he was a kid. It's frightening. There's always things that could go wrong. And by the way, last time I checked, I don't think Lloyd Austin could do an existential body thing and go be on call from being knocked out. So this is as bad as it gets. By the gets. The reason you're seeing the chaos here,

the reason you're seeing things like this, this is like putting the ultimate DEI team of high school debating kids in charge of national security. That's what we're seeing here. Wow. It's a damning analysis, Tony, and one factually based, and I commend you for your courage on it. I want to go to another issue before we finish, which is Israel, but we're going to take it to the British

Parliament. This is really weird, what we're about to show you. So this is David Cameron, now Lord David Cameron, Defense Minister for Great Britain, former Prime Minister David Cameron, under oath, answering questions from a parliamentary committee about how many Brits are held by the Gazans. Next to him is his deputy, who, though speaking British English, is speaking a version of it that's very difficult to follow, but you'll get the picture. I'm going to ask you when this is over, what do you think they're hiding? Take a listen. Take a look at this. Be specific about the number of UK nationals who remain as hostages. Yes, there are two.

And do we have proof of life? There are two British nationals that remain as hostages. I don't want to make any further Mae yna ddwy Gwledydd Gwledydd sy'n aros fel hynny. Dydw i ddim am wneud unrhyw sylwadau arnynt. Mae yna hefyd... Ydym ni'n gwybod eu bod nhw'n byw? Dydw i ddim am ddweud unrhyw beth. Dydyn ni ddim yn cael unrhyw wybodaeth i'w rhannu. Mae yna hefyd... There are also, of course, people very connected to Britain who are also hostages. A few of us were in Doha in December where we met with Roger Carstens,

who is the US hostage negotiator. He can tell me in a minute's notice the names of all the hostages who are American who are still being held by Hamas, let alone the ones in Venezuela or anywhere else in the country, and he can most certainly tell me how many have been brought back to the US. How many have been brought back to the UK who had UK citizenship? There are two, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned, who have British nationality who are hostages.

There are others who are connected to the UK through family ties. I think the answer to your question is brought back to the uk by the uk government is i think it will happen who brought them back i care about british nationals who were held how many have been brought back let me let me confirm after this but i you know i'll speak for myself from the front i don't think there are any yeah okay so the answer's zero. I think that's right. What do you think they're hiding? Who are these people very connected to Britain? Might they be MI6

or might they be British soldiers? So, look, I don't... This is a blind spot for me because I've not tracked that close to the British aspects of this. And, you know, I have British contacts. I have contacts, full disclosure. I've worked with the British several times.

It's not a secret. I have no idea what they're talking about here. This is a cover-up without any regard to why. I think it's more about embarrassment than anything secret. Just the way they're kind of, you know, not willing to talk about who's in there and this, that, and the other. Do I think they're kind of not willing to talk about who's in there and this, that, and the other. Do I think they're up to something? Oh, yeah, I think the British should try to do something. Well, they should try to either by negotiation or by clandestine action, recover their citizens. They have every right to do that. But

I think this is more, this looked more like amateur hour than any real ability to keep a James Bond style plot secret. I mean, this is, this is Benny Hill meets, meets Daniel Craig. I don't think you'd see much, you know, you could, you know. Chris, you got to make a cut of that one. Benny Hill meets Daniel Craig. Yeah. We'll meet in Istanbul. No, East Ham Bowl.

It's an old Benny Hill thing. Right, right, right. It was very difficult to understand what that fellow was saying. Well, when you don't have all your teeth, you know, it's tough. Back to Ukraine, just to put a bow on this package. Yeah. Joe Biden still doesn't have an off-ramp. He can claim stalemate, and then he can claim his focus is on Israel. But there's no legitimate moral off-ramp to justify 10 million people leaving Ukraine, a half a million young men dead or disabled, a hundred billion American

dollars wasted. We don't know if any Americans were killed. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Why? So he can run for reelection as a wartime president. Well, that's what the goal was, I think. And I think it's backfired. Much like everything they do, it's kind of, they try to do something and the opposite happens. So in this case, the Duran calls the Russian situation. Basically, the entire, you know, the entire line of engagement is the philosophy of the Russians is aggressive attrition. That's what that's Duran, the Duran, you know, the folks who talk to do the Duran. That's what their term is. And I think it's accurate. Basically, the Russians are aggressively antagonizing the Ukrainians to uselessly expend their military force against their very vaunted four-layer defense all along the line of engagement.

So the Russians are just sitting there saying, yeah, come on, come on. You just knocked yourself out. And that's why you have these 500,000 plus casualties. They're not dead, but I mean, you know, either dead or severely wounded. And now they're calling for another 500,000 that they don't have. That is manpower. So at this point, the Russians, the initiative is now with Russia. Russia has the initiative. The question becomes, does Putin and the Russians want to take advantage of it? Do they want to do anything? And I would argue, yeah, probably, but not now. I think they're just going to let things kind of go as they are because they're winning. There's no reason to change.

If your adversary, come on, Judge, we always talk about this politically. If your adversary is making mistakes, don't say anything and interfere with their ability to undermine their own effort. That's what's going on here. Tony, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us, even though the sun isn't even up here yet on the East Coast. But thank you, and we'll talk to you again next week. All the best.

Thanks, Judge. You got it. A full day coming up for you, as you know, including Scott Ritter from Moscow, John Mearsheimer, Professor Mearsheimer from Chicago, coming up at nine o'clock Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Cambodia. Wow. Moscow, Cambodia, New Jersey. Only in America. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.