Judging Freedom - INTEL-Roundtable with Ray McGovern & Larry Johnson: Why US Intel Lies About Ukraine.

Episode Date: December 16, 2023

In this provocative exploration, we dive into the intriguing question of "Why US Intel Lies About Ukraine." Join us as we navigate the complex landscape of intelligence and international affairs, examining the motivations and implications behind the information provided by the United States intelligence community concerning Ukraine.#russia #ukraine #USMilitaryHistory #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostages #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesSee 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 Friday, December 15th, 2023. Welcome to one of my favorite segments, not only to dear friends on whose wisdom and advice I've relied for a long time, but also because it's Friday afternoon,

and everybody looks forward to this and is happy on Friday afternoons. TGIF. But guys, welcome here. Welcome, Larry. Welcome, Ray. I know you each have things we want to talk about. Larry, I'm going to go to you first. You wrote an interesting piece that came out last night, I think, about Intel that the government has decided to release.

So how does the government decide what to declassify, I guess, to make it look good? And what did they declassify this time around? Well, ultimately, the president can make the decision to declassify anything, as Donald Trump has said. He doesn't have to go ask permission of anyone else. So the intelligence that was was leaked it was actually it came out i think on tuesday it was designed to coincide with the arrival of zielinski in town uh to leak and tell it to wasn't really leaked to declassify this intelligence that said well ukraine's not doing so bad and they are making a little progress here. And boy, Russia is suffering lots of casualties, except they are advancing all along the front. I mean, it was really a combination of being disingenuous and dishonest, that piece of intelligence.

But it didn't work. The Republicans didn't go, oh, my God, we still have a chance in Ukraine. No, they said, we're not voting for any more money right now, not until we get the border taken care of. And so they've departed today from Washington, D.C., without any more money in the pipeline for Ukraine. So give me the essence of what was declassified. It wasn't that Russia is winning. It's more nonsense that Ukraine can still win in an effort to persuade Republicans in the House of Representatives to give Joe Biden $68 billion? Well, they declassified the, quote,

intelligence about Russian casualties. Coming up with this number saying that Russia has suffered like 87% losses of the force that it started with. Is that true? Is it even remotely true? That's the point. It's a damnable lie. But here's the reality. Russia, since January 1st of this year, has been enlisting volunteers at the rate of over 41,000 a month.

Russia has committed publicly through Putin to expand their army to 1.3 million active duty and their overall armed forces to 2.2 million. That should have been in the intelligence assessment, pointing out the fact that Ukraine, it only has about 300,000 troops left. It doesn't have any more men really to volunteer under the age of 25. It's gathering up guys who are 40, 50, and 60 years old, in some cases 70 years old. I mean, that's why Ray and I stay away from that place.

They'd grab us and park the uniform on us. You weren't too far away two weeks ago. Ray, do intelligence officers or whoever produces the raw data, agents, officers, correct me on the terminology, intentionally produce misinformation so that it can be declassified to misguide the public? Of course, yeah. In this case, as Larry points out, it was particularly cynical. Here, as Zelensky arrives in Washington, the idea is to persuade all concerned that not everything is lost here. And guess what?

87% of the Russian force has been decimated since they started this invasion. Pure, pure BS, okay? So what's the even more cynical part of this? They chose the two reporters, the only two mainstream reporters that got it right on weapons of mass destruction before the attack on Iraq. Jonathan Warren's trouble and Jonathan somebody I'll remember. Landy. Jonathan Landy. Yeah. So they picked these guys. Landy for Reuters. They picked Strobel for the Wall Street Journal.

You know, these are the guys that earned some trust way back before Iraq. And now they're using them. And they're letting themselves be used to put this BS out in hopes of persuading Congress. You know, one last point here. I don't know if they really thought they could persuade Congress. They checked with the House before this. I think, and this is just a guess, I think they wanted to have a one-on-one with Zelensky

so they didn't have to use a cable, they didn't have to use a telephone. They could say, look, here's the special plan we have. Here's the false flag. This is what's going to save us. So are you on board with this? Just realize not all is lost. This is what we're going to do in the next couple of weeks.

That's what I fear. 50% chance? Even so. I fear that very much. Why else have him one on one knowing that he's not going to get anything out of the house larry this this is this is a game if if intel is knowingly giving false information to the white house so that the white house can declassify it how does the white house know the difference between false information and legitimate information or is the white house in on

this get on this gig oh no they no, they're in on it. This is where you harness intelligence to serve policy. And in other words, you tell the intelligence community what the story is that they're going to spin out, and they happily oblige. This was produced by the Director of National Intelligence. So that means that analysts at CIA and analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency, they may have contributed to it. They may

have written some parts of it. They may have written diametrically opposed parts, but that was ultimately cobbled together at the DNI and sent forward and released to Congress as, quote, intelligence. But there were so many things that they didn't talk about in this assessment, such as the fact that Russia's recruitment is way up, that Russia's expanding its armed forces, that Russia's defense capabilities are running 24-7, and the United States and Europe combined can't match it. You know, there were a lot of things that would have, should have been in that assessment in terms of saying, you know what, Ukraine doesn't have a snowball's chance on a hot fire of doing anything else to defeat Russia.

What was their intimation in there, Larry, that the U.S. is taking control of Ukrainian military planning? Oh, yeah. Well, but that was in tandem with the intelligence release. They announced that they're sending three-star General Aguta to Ukraine, and he's going to supposedly look over the shoulder of the Ukrainian generals and give them guidance. You know what?

The United States giving guidance on this war is like taking the 70-year-old driver's ed instructor at your local high school and putting them in charge of telling Formula One racers how to drive race cars. They're not qualified. Our military has never fought a war like this since World War II. There is not a single general, four, three, two, or one star, that has any practical experience in conducting combined arms operations against a peer. All right, Ray. This just in. This just in from Lieutenant General Antonio Aguto speaking by video link. OK.

The Russians are jamming our precision guided missiles. Aguto said the Pentagon needs to be resilient enough to be able to counter what our adversaries do. Within weeks or months of us deploying something on the battlefield, our adversaries could find ways to either disrupt or counter some of these capabilities. Oh, my God. We didn't know this. No, we build F-35s. We don't build small things like countermeasures. I mean, this is a a good though. This is a guy in charge now. How dangerous is it? If we're sending a general, he's obviously got a staff with him.

He's not going alone. How dangerous is it, Ray, to do this? How, how creeping is the mission, mission creep, like in Vietnam,

when we started out in the JFK years with advisors. It seems like history is repeating itself. No declaration of war, plenty of cash, advisors. Judge, these have been advisors here like this for months and months and months since the beginning of the offensive into Ukraine. If something happens to General Agutu, we will hear about it, but it won't change anything, and the Russians will probably avoid doing in General Agutu. They can do that very, very easily with their precision-guided munitions, which we apparently don't have any countermeasures against.

So it's not a big deal. It's just that openly declared now he's got three stars. If he gets killed, it'll be a big deal. But I don't think he's going to get killed. And if he does, it can be suppressed. Larry, while we're still on this and before we move to other topics, does Intel claim in this that Putin is satisfied with a stalemate? No. No, they don't. My understanding is they're sort of surprised that Putin is still standing.

Because all along they've been predicting that Putin's got the, let's see, the heartbreak of psoriasis, ingrown toenails, heart conditions, Parkinson's disease, cancer, who knows, SIDS maybe, you know, sudden infant death syndrome. I mean, it's laughable. And, you know, that's why it's embarrassing to really call it an intelligence assessment declassification. Because it really makes the U.S. intelligence community look like a veritable clown show. But they do do this. You're both saying. Okay.

Well, hey, that wouldn't have happened back when Ray and I were there. Analysts would have had it. They would have revolted. They would not have stood for this. Ray, would your buddy Bill, the man you admire so much, obviously I'm being sarcastic, Bill Burns have approved of this? Did this bypass Burns and go through Avril Haines? Burns would approve it.

He's a cog in the system. You know, he's a big disappointment. He's joined the team, so to speak, which a head of CIA should not do. As a matter of fact, since he joined the team so faithfully, they made him a member of the cabinet. Something else the director of central intelligence should not be. We talk about Putin's health. We're going to play a montage of President Biden on Ukraine. Now, we picked this. It shows him saying, Putin is lost. We're with you for as long as it takes.

We're with you for as long as we can. Putin might take Ukraine. And we'll comment on it. And then we'll play Putin in the middle of four hours of answering Q&A with no stopping and no notes. First the montage, then we'll comment, then we'll play President Putin. Putin's war of conquest is failing. Russia's military has lost half its territory it once occupied. It's worth fighting for, for as long as it takes. And that's how long we're going to be with you, Mr. President, for as long as it takes. We'll do it. And we're advancing this goal by providing them the support Ukraine needs now on the battlefield and helping them strengthen their military over the long term.

The fact of the matter is that I believe we'll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine as long as it takes. The American people can be and should be incredibly proud of the part they played in supporting Ukraine's success. We'll continue to supply Ukraine with critical weapons and equipment as long as we can. If Putin takes Ukraine, he won't stop there. It's important to see the long run here. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks a NATO ally, then we'll have something that we don't seek and that we don't have today, American troops fighting Russian troops, American troops fighting Russian troops if he moves into other parts of NATO. What do you think, Larry?

I mean, this is political language has so changed from as long as it takes to as long as we can. Putin's losing. Putin may take Ukraine. The last thing, you're going to hear him in a minute, Putin wants is, quote, to take Ukraine. Larry. Yeah, this is like if anyone has ever dealt with an alcoholic or somebody who's in the grips of drug addiction, you got to let them hit rock bottom. They've got to come to an awakening themselves that they need help. And that's where the United States is. We're in denial.

We're sort of getting there, but we're not there yet. And that's why you have the decision to send a Guta forward to Kiev on a more permanent basis with a company-sized staff, about 150 guys around him. And we're going to continue to try to provoke Russia. The danger in this, and this is one of the things I learned last week while in Russia, is the Russians, they're not playing anymore. They have finally awakened to the fact that the United States views them as an enemy. And it was said to me directly by a very senior member of the Russian diplomatic corps that there was a time in the Cold War during the most, or no time in the Cold War, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis,

did the United States ever refer to Russia as an enemy and cut off communications and engage in very petty, irritating steps to try to torment the other side. And he says, that's what the United States is doing now. We don't have anybody that we can talk to. This is very dangerous because if you're calling us an enemy, we are prepared to defend ourselves. Ray, is General Togoda going there as a target in the hopes that the Russians will attack him and Joe will have an excuse to put American troops on the ground? Is their wish to use Ukraine as a battering ram to drive Vladimir Putin from office so sick that they would sacrifice American life for it? It would delight the likes of Lindsey Graham, who has made it clear that if the American troops die, that's when we go in big.

But no, I think it's more an ornament. In other words, we have to show that we're going to support Ukraine for as long as it is. I'm sorry, as long as we can. And so sending a three star there. So, you know, it doesn't really make a lot of difference. It's certainly not going to make any difference on the ground because he's already expressed amazement that these countermeasures that the Russians. Can you believe it? They're jamming our very sophisticated weapons. What are we going to do? This is a challenge, as he...

The thing is lost. The problem is, what is Biden going to do? And that's why I fear a false flag thing. These guys are quite possible. These are the same guys that said let's blow up the downstream pipeline for God's sake. So we don't lose the war, we don't lose the election,

and we don't lose our freedom. All right. Keep in mind the pathetic statements President Biden just made. Yesterday, President Putin spoke for four and a half hours, 30 minutes in a speech, four hours of Q&A, nonstop, no notes. Here he is. There will be peace when we achieve our goals. Now, let's get back to these goals. They don't change. Let me remind you of what we talked about, about the denazification of Ukraine, about demilitarization, about its neutral status. We will agree on demilitarization and agree on certain parameters. During the negotiations in Istanbul, we agreed on them, but then they simply threw these agreements into the oven. There are other possibilities, either to reach an agreement or to resolve it by force.

This is what we will strive for. Throwing the agreement in the oven was the infamous trip by then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to say, you know, don't worry, Vlad Zelensky, the Americans and the British and the West have your back. What did you think of him there, Ray? His demeanor, his posture, the consistency of his argument and his understanding of recent history? Judge, he's riding high. He's feeling very confident. He's overcome all these diseases that Larry just mentioned, including the cancer and all that stuff. So my only problem is that he has to realize that he still faces a very unpredictable, very unstable president on the other side of the ocean. And that's why he and others are saying, look, America, don't think you can hide between two oceans anymore. That's not going to be the case.

So what happens? What happens if a mini-nuke is exploded to show the Russians we mean business in Ukraine? I do not rule that out. The only thing that the Russians have to really, really retaliate with is destroying the rest of the world. They're trying to warn these sophomores around Blinken that, look, this is very serious stuff. Don't even think of turning the tide in Ukraine. It's not going to work. Even a mini-nuke is not going to work. What is the status of Odessa, Ray?

Well, you know, I had hope 14 months ago when Putin gave his last such Q&A. He was asked about Odessa and he said, you know, Odessa could be a place of arranging things so that we have a peaceful thing. It's a beautiful city. It could be very different now. We could arrange to have Odessa as a, not an apple of discord, but a method of, as he put it, conflict resolution. Well, what does that mean? Well, Odessa, you know, sits on the bottom of the Dnieper River. I think they were putting out a little signal saying, look, you know, let's talk about it. Yes, it's primarily Russian, but we can kind of rule that thing together. And that way, Ukraine would be a viable state because they have access to the sea. Yesterday, he said, everybody knows that Dnipro is a Russian city. We know that. Everybody knows that. End of that little tentative offering of just 14 months ago.

Larry, is there any question in your mind but that the deal that was on the table, thrown in the oven, Boris Johnson nixed it, Joe Biden sent him, would have been a far better deal for Ukraine than what they will get in the next year. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely. Ukraine would probably still have Zaporizhzhia, Kherson. They would not be faced with – they're going to lose Odessa and Kharkiv. So, yeah, they would have been well ahead of the game, and they would have saved at least 300, three, 400,000 Ukrainian men from dying.

You've now got casualties that probably combined killed in action, wounded in action, exceed 1.2 million. So you can't take any of that back. What will it take? Go ahead, Larry. I'm sorry. Well, I just, if you remember what Putin said at the end there, in that statement, he says, either they'll find a way to be reasonable about this and talk it out, or we'll settle it by force.

He's not kidding. They will settle it by force. In fact, it's going to be settled by force because there is no incentive in the West to negotiate on terms that Russia will find acceptable. I mean, other than taking money from column A in the Defense Department budgets, which is a scandalous $886 billion, and putting it into column B, what can the government do, Ray, if the House of Representatives continues to say no, no on $60 billion? We don't care if you build a wall in Texas. We're not giving Ukraine the money. For the short term, the government could do nothing. There is a lot around, I'm told, to tide them through for a couple of months.

It will largely depend on whether the Republicans remain sturdy and strong in resisting this or whether they can be shamed into a case where they're losing Ukraine for the free world. You know, you're not sticking by these loyal people who are fighting the hated Russians. I don't know how it's going to play out politically, but you're right. There's not enough money, except for the next couple of months, if they could keep this going and see what the political situation is in Washington in February, March, then that's when the crunch comes. Larry, I'll give you the last word. Yeah, I don't see the excuse me republican congress uh funding this uh when they return in january because i think the situation on the ground will have turned even more dire in terms of ukraine as well as the the real question whether or not zielinski will still be in power i think the the the possibility of a military coup increases with each day.

Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you very much. Double duty, as usual. A happy Friday afternoon to both of you. A happy weekend to both of you. We'll see you both at your usual times next week. Thanks, Judge. All right. I'm about to hop onto Newsmax and then I'll be right back here at five o'clock for Ask the Judge. Your questions to me. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.