Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: UN Vote, Moscow Attack, Gaza, Ukraine

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern: UN Vote, Moscow Attack, Gaza, UkraineSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 28th, 2024. We're pretending it's Friday. It's the end of the day. It's the end of the work week for many of us in the United States. The boys are here.

It's time for the Intelligence Community Roundtable with Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson. My dear friends, thank you very much for accommodating this shortened week and joining us today on a Thursday afternoon. Larry, I'll start with you first. Why are the EU and the U.S. so adamant about who committed the crimes on the Crocus concert and who did not commit the crimes at the Crocus concert. It's an intelligence community covert action, a propaganda campaign. It's designed to lie. Think about this. No country in NATO, neither the United States none of them have a single

investigator liaison officer on the ground in Russia with the Russian investigators yet everybody is blessed with amazing clairvoyant powers that they can magically know exactly

what evidence the Russians have and they know that it clearly exonerates Ukraine. It's just, it's utter crap. It's a lie. And it's one of the most clumsy lies I've ever seen. Because instead of the professional approach would be, you know, we don't know who did it, but we're going to work with the Russians to help investigate because we passed information that claimed that there was going to be a terrorist attack. So we want to get to the bottom of this, too.

Now, that's not what they're doing. This entire operation is designed to try to attack and weaken Putin. That's what it's all about. And the Brits and Americans didn't give a damn how many Russians they killed in the process of trying to do that. Ray, in the real world where there are normal relations, where the State Department and the Russian foreign ministry speak with each other, where the President of the United States doesn't call the President of Russia insulting names and says he's got to be removed from power. In that real world, wouldn't we at least have offered FBI investigators and CIA on the ground to help get to the bottom of this? Unless, of course, we were trying to mask our own involvement. Well, in the ordinary course of events, we would do that. We would do

precisely that. But as Larry says, this is not the ordinary course of events. When Bortnikov, the head of the KGB successor for internment, was the FBI equivalent, when he says casually in a corridor conversation that the US, UK, Ukraine were involved, he wouldn't say that without Putin's blessing. I believe that indicates they have pretty good evidence now that they're waiting. They're waiting to make even more concrete and show to the world what happened. That's what I think. I think Larry is 100 percent correct. Larry, the person Ray is speaking of was the head of the FSB. This is not like Chris Ray, who makes speeches all over the place and appears on television all the time. This is a guy that never appears in public.

And yet he told Russia today exactly what Ray just said. A, isn't that profound? B, doesn't that mean there's evidence? C, doesn't that mean that Putin authorized him to say this? Yeah, I would say yes to all of the above. Look, what's going on here is this has been stage managed by the West. Notice now the line that's coming out of the White House and out of the State Department and out of the front pages of the New York Times and, sad to say, out of Cy Hersh's latest substack. The story that's being pushed is, oh, we're the United States. We told the Russians what was going to happen, and they dropped the ball. They ignored this intelligence. Their security services suck. They didn't do anything to protect the Russian people. Vladimir Putin, he's just a bad president.

Okay, that's the storyline that's being put out. Let's look at what was exactly said. On March 7th, the U.S. embassy released to a public warning, and it said very simply, stay away from public gatherings, particularly concert halls, for the next 48 hours. At no point during that announcement or in the succeeding days did the State Department, the Biden administration, the FBI, the CIA, or anybody come out and say, okay, guys, our 48 hours was wrong, but we still believe the threat is viable, so stay away from public places. Didn't say that at all because they had an obligation to say that if they still believe the threat was viable. This 48-hour window, I think, was a complete fabrication because they knew when it was going to take place. They knew

it wasn't going to take place then. And therefore, they get to come back and say, see, we told you so. But they didn't tell him so. They didn't call the Russian ambassador into State Department to brief him on it. So this, again, I am furious over this because this is a complete manipulation of facts and it's based upon lies. Ray, if they manipulated facts, as Larry has argued, and it appears they did. What are they trying to cover up? Their awareness of the fact that Ukraine intelligence services, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of MI6 and CIA, knew about it, and therefore their bosses know about it. Yeah, and that they were running the attackers. Running the attackers.

That's right. I mean, these four Tajiks are not going to do this stuff all by themselves. That's why Putin keeps insisting, look, we know who the people who perpetrated this was, but we don't know on whose behalf, who was supporting them, who was arming them and so forth so now there is a logical explanation in my view as to why this 48 hours thing was set in in in blood really um there was a great big concert planned for the ninth i believe so today within 48 hours it was the it was the Taylor Swift of Russia, okay? And everyone was expected to be there, including some high muckety mucks, as my Irish grandmother would say. All right.

So that seemed to be the key time that this thing would happen. Now we know that security was reinforced to the point that there was a SRV person for every three other people. And so it was called off, apparently. Now, there is suggestions that everyone kind of said, oh, well, we don't have to worry about that anymore because the whole point of this was to do something to disrupt the Russian elections, which didn't take place until the 13th, 14th, and 15th. Got it? Okay. So you can see where Putin himself might have said three days before the election, well, you know, this is a kind of provocation. I don't know why the U.S. did this.

And then, lo and behold, on the 22nd, you get the attacks. Now, did the Ukrainians go ahead without further instructions? I don't know. But let's face it, the Ukrainians. If the Tajiki did this without further instructions, I strongly doubt that. At least they were not called off, it seems to me. Or maybe it was sort of momentum that couldn't be stopped. But that's the way I reconstruct it. And that's why the 48 hours seemed to be really key, because this key concert,

Taylor Swift, Russian brand, was going to take place on the 9th. Here's President Putin just two days ago, who reinforces precisely what Ray just articulated. We know that the crimes were committed by radical Islamists, whose ideology the Islamic world itself has been fighting for centuries. We also see that the U.S., through various channels, is trying to convince its satellites ideology, the Islamic world itself has been fighting for centuries. We also see that the US through various channels is trying to convince its satellites and other parts of the world that according to their intelligence there is no trace of Kiev in the Moscow terrorist attack, that the bloody terrorist attack was committed by followers of Islam, members of the ISIS organization banned in Russia.

We know by whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people was committed. We are interested in who ordered it. We are interested in who ordered it. The other translation is we are interested in who the customer was, Larry. Yeah. Is it conceivable between the two of you there's a lifetime of experience in American Intel?

And I mean that with deference and respect. I'm not commenting on anybody's age. Two lifetimes. Two professional lifetimes. Is professional lifetimes. Is it conceivable that the mentality of the Jack Devine side of these things is such that they didn't give a damn about the slaughter of 140 innocents, mainly young people, Ray? I'm afraid the answer to that is, Judge, not very much.

I mean, when you're on orders, you know, and you have the capability to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline, for God's sake, and you say, yes, sir, I can do that. What's to prevent them from allowing Tajikis, responsive to Ukrainians, trained in Turkey under our auspices, wants to prevent them and say, well, it's not going to be tied to us. We'll deny it. We'll blame the Tajikis. You know, it's very cynical, but these guys don't really care much about the effects of their actions. Just they can do, they can do, and they will do. And, whoa, look what we did. That's the mentality.

Is there any significance to Tajikistan, Larry? Is there any significance to ISIS-K that the State Department came out with within 55 minutes? It wasn't Ukraine, it was ISIS-K before they had any evidence whatsoever. Yeah. I mean, they were just, I think the decision had been made in advance that was going to be the group that committed it. And they knew that the way the Ukrainians arranged this is they had a cutout, and that cutout then was directed to recruit these four characters.

What do you mean by cutout? Somebody that wasn't directly affiliated with Ukraine. So this guy, the head of the IS Khorasan in Afghanistan, online preacher, was directed to reach out to these guys and recruited them and convinced them to operate. But you try to put distance between yourself, but there's always a but that you try to put distance between yourself but there's still always uh there's always a trail that you can follow particularly the fact that they reportedly

were paid with cryptocurrency you know people think cryptocurrency is you know secret you can hide everything that means you don't understand blockchain blockchain a. Every transaction is recorded. So it's just a matter of walking back to see who did what. So this was clearly an operation. The United States started distancing itself from this operation two days before the attack. We know that because of the article that appeared in the Financial Times, and then the tweet that was sent out by this OSI defender on 3.30 in the morning on the 22nd when the bomb went off. Both of the articles carried the message, oh, U.S. officials are really concerned about these unauthorized brazen attacks by Ukraine. Okay? So the United States knew it was coming,

and they were trying to distance themselves saying, we're outraged. It's like that scene from Casablanca. Police chief is gambling in the casino. I am outraged. And here's your winnings, sir. Same thing. Same thing.

Shocked. Ray, do you think that the West has recognized the utter failure of its efforts to use Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive President Putin from office and has now resorted to asymmetric warfare, which includes the slaughter of innocent civilians inside Russia? I believe that this incident would suggest that, but it also can be looked at sui generis in and of itself. Things are going really badly in Ukraine, to be sure, for the Ukrainians, the UK, the US, and NATO. Yet there was a Russian election coming up and where all kinds of provocations actually strikes within Russia before the campaign ended. And then this golden opportunity to show how defenseless Russia was for people who want to kill 140 young people, okay? So I read that in that context. Now, what's Putin going to do now? Well, I believe he'll assemble all the evidence and he'll bring it to the court of public opinion

at the UN probably. And I don't know what kind of reception he'll get. I don't think he's going to go off half-cocked because the Russians have already won in Ukraine. And there's one other thing I would add, and that is he spoke yesterday to airmen, to pilots, and he said, look, he said, these F-16s, you know, these F-16s, you know, they're nuclear capable. So if they come into the fight, they're gone. They're going to be destroyed. And the airfields from which they fly, they're going to be destroyed too. And that includes airfields of friendly to Ukraine neighbors. So the Dias cast, and I would add one little thing here. When Biden was told by Zelensky, who came to this meeting in the Far East, he says,

oh, we lost Bakhmut. We lost Bakhmut. Biden immediately, without consulting any advisors, says, all right, now we're going to send in the F-16s. All right? So it's the same day, okay? That was what, May of last year or July? It was a year ago, okay? Now, that don't make any sense. As Putin says here, we've got pilots that can destroy those things, and we've already begun working on destroying their airfields, says Putin yesterday. So, you know, this thing could escalate unless the U.S. realizes that the game is up. But Putin is not going to strike any foreign capitals until he's so provoked. Well, he's going to strike airfields first, okay? And he's not going to use nuclear weapons. And that is a canard,

that is a false flag, raising the use of low-yield nuclear weapons, because Russians don't have to do that. The U.S. may feel it has to do that. Here's Dr. Gilbert Doctorow. I don't know if you guys know him. Mearsheimer says he, though Mearsheimer has classed with him, he is a well-respected student of Russia, PhD professor, American who lives in Brussels. Chris, play 15 and 16, where Professor Doctorow attempts to connect the dots, including, as he calls her, Madame Nuland. We note that several related facts, Madame Nuland, Victoria Nuland, was fired on the 5th of March. It's highly interesting that this coincidence. I and others have spoken of her connection with the German generals plotting a strike on the Kerch Bridge using their cruise missiles. However, it is more likely that she was fired because the mission that she had supervised to attack Russia, a terrorist attack using Islamic extremists on the 8th of

March was no longer operable. They are working on expanding further the information leads they have now on the connections with ISIS in Istanbul, on the timing of the American warning to Russia that a terrorist attack could take place. Let's remember that was on the 7th of March. That's to say two days after Victoria Nuland was fired and one day before the planned execution of the terrorist attack in Moscow. So the bits and pieces, the dots are falling into place. I repeat that Mr. Bortnikov would never dare to say what he said yesterday without the blessing of Mr. Putin, and Mr. Putin has always been a very cautious player. Harry, does this event, whoever caused it, whoever paid for it, whoever orchestrated it,

put pressure on Putin to be more aggressive in the execution of the war in Ukraine? No, but listen, I think Doctorow is wrong. I mean, he is engaged with wild speculation with respect to Vicky Nuland. Oh, she was fired? Sorry, I don't buy it because she already had a job lined up, number one. And I've heard people make this analysis that, oh, she missed out on the deputy secretary job. So, you know, that's why, you know, they didn't fire her for that. And she didn't, getting that job was not her goal. She had the second most powerful job in State Department

after Secretary of State as Undersecretary for Political Affairs. I think she saw the disaster coming and wanted to get out before it happened because she could get blamed for it. I think that's another plausible scenario here. But that doesn't discredit what's been said about Bortnikoff and his comments to the public. I mean, that's an objective fact. We all saw him say it, and he wouldn't say that without having the approval of Putin. And frankly, they wanted him to get the word out that they know there was U.S. involvement, there was U.K. involvement. But if the CIA planned this, Vicky Nuland's the last person they're going to talk to about it.

Would the event itself put pressure on Putin to be more aggressive, to level buildings in Kiev, to go farther west, Larry? No. I mean, look at what Russia's been happening on the ground. And again, there's no shit. Oh, they killed civilians. What's been going on since 2014? The Ukrainians have been killing civilians. And since 2022, they've been killing civilians in Russia with US, British, French, and German weapons. So this, yeah, this attack was in Moscow. Yeah, it was high profile. But the fact of the matter is the act of killing civilians by the West, that's been going on for two years. And the Russians are pursuing their military strategy accordingly.

I think the only thing that's changed is that now Russia is not going to avoid hitting NATO command centers that are anywhere inside Ukraine. They just hit one the other day in Chosyf Yar. Ray, the Kremlin yesterday, we all talk about, because we're all students of Orwell, the significance of words and terminology. The Kremlin yesterday changed what it has been calling the military events in Ukraine from a special military operation to a war. Is that significant from the Russian perspective? It is. It comes from the Kremlin spokesman. Peskov. Yeah. What's his name? Peskov. Peskov, yeah. Okay. Comes directly from his mouth, so it's completely authorized. This is a difference. It's not a distinction without a difference. It's exactly how the Russians look at it now. So with respect to the question as to

whether Putin will feel more pressure to do more in ukraine the answer i would give is yes the more operative question is will he succumb to that pressure the answer i will give to that is no i think gil doctorow who i know quite well, is quite right in saying that Putin is a very measured, measured person. OK, now, will he will he strike out at NATO airfields in NATO countries? No. Will he strike out at fields capable of accommodating F-16 in Ukraine? Yes. And he has already begun doing that. Okay. So we'll see the decision centers bombed with more regularity. Putin has the upper hand. As I say, it's really, I can't imagine why our leaders, the neophytes advising Biden, can't see that the fat lady

should begin to sing. Now, the last thing I want to say is this. Wait a minute. The fat lady's up at Columbia University now. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You said it, I did. I knew what you were both thinking. Yeah, you're welcome to that. Now, let me just say this, that the fat, well, Victoria Nuland on the 31st of January said in an impromptu press conference in the middle of Ukrainian military intelligence at the time, as well as Zelensky and the others. And it's not a stretch to think that she would be very close in touch with the Jack Devines of this era and that she was kind of quite in league with Bartnikov. Not Bart, yeah, Bartnikov. Bartnikov. The guy who was running it from the side, as I believe.

Right. So I don't think, I think your key, George, is the 55 minutes. I mean, it speaks volumes. How could they know in 55 minutes there was a Ukraine and there was ISIS? Give me a break. Larry, what will happen if President Macron of France is foolish enough to send 2,000 troops to Ukraine, combat troops? Won't they be taken out as soon as the Russians can do so? He'll learn the lesson that Napoleon learned. Don't invade Russia. Don't send French troops to Russia

because they won't make it out. And, you know, the more I think about this, I think it's going to be unlikely for him to do so because if he does that, he's going to really screw up the Olympics this summer. And I think the last thing he wants to do is throw a wrench into the Olympics. The Olympics are in Paris this summer. Yeah.

So to make that a disaster. But if he does it, Putin has made it very clear, we'll kill him. And if they're involved militarily in any form or fashion, in fact, they've already killed French soldiers, French mercenaries. And as Ray was pointing out, even before the terrorist attack on the 22nd, the Russian military had stepped up its attacks on power producing plants. So they're taking those out now. So Kharkiv has been in the dark now for about two weeks and lights aren't coming back on. Gentlemen, thank you very much. No matter what we talk about, it's a pleasure. I welcome all of your insight all the time, whether we all agree on every detail or not. And Larry, thank you for what you said about Cy.

I mean, when you sent me a paragraph of what Cy wrote, I thought I was misreading it. I had to read it three times to make sure that you had it right, that I read it right, that there wasn't a negative missing. missing, but even somebody like Tsai, who was the courageous and brilliant enough to expose the Nord Stream pipeline, can sometimes fall for this stuff. Yeah, he just, he's getting fed by intelligence sources, the same ones that were feeding it to the New York Times. And it's not just an odd coincidence that Tsai's article comes out, same time the New York Times article comes out, with the same message. You know, when you see that, you know that there's information operation going on. Do you know him, Ray? I do. He's a good friend.

I would just simply say this, that my dad, the lawyer, had a frivolous phrase that he invented, the age of statutory senility. He quit about seven boards of directors when he was 70. That's what he said with the age. You see, the rest of you should quit too, if you're over 70. The viewers should know your father was not just a lawyer. Your father was a brilliant professor at Fordham Law School who taught many of us, even those of us that didn't attend Fordham Law School, because we read his works while we were studying at other law schools. So you're being modest. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much.

Go ahead. It's the age of statutory solidity, so nobody thinks I still think it's 70. It's now five years from where I am. It's age 90. Okay. So please listen to me for the next five years. You got it. At least that long.

Gentlemen, happy Easter to both of you and to your families. Thank you very much for your time. Thanks for pretending. This is Holy Thursday. Thanks for pretending it's a Friday. Thanks a lot. Have a Friday. Thanks a lot. Have a good Easter. Thank you. And happy Easter to everyone for watching. It's been a challenging and rewarding week because so many of you have tuned in. Back to the old routine next week.

Happy Easter. Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Altyazı M.K.