Judging Freedom - Lt Col. Tony Shaffer: How Shrewd Is Putin?

Episode Date: August 1, 2024

Lt Col. Tony Shaffer: How Shrewd Is Putin?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 Thursday, August 1st, 2024. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer is with us. Tony, what a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. Thank you for taking the time to join us. We have a lot to talk about, a lot that's happened since you and I were together last. I mainly want to dwell on Russia, but before we get to Russia, the effect of the war on it, the likely and coming demise of Kiev. What is your take two and a half weeks after the attempted assassination? What is your take on the assassination? Was it just this scrawny 20-year-old kid or were others complicit in this? The kid was a patsy. The kid has been lied about and his history manipulated. The Gab account he supposedly had, what was brought up by the

acting director of the Secret Service, I think, the day before yesterday, and it's been mischaracterized. They basically tried, the Secret Service tried to make him into a Trump supporter and say that he was some Trump person and yet it's very clear he wasn't. If you look at the actual content of the account, so that's first thing, like

okay, there's something wrong here. Secondly, just the way he's portrayed as kind of this kid who nobody liked him. It's like, apparently he was a bully. And I, it's just interesting,

the different narratives, which are not quite syncing up just him. So then just set him aside. There's now a bit of video of him moving around. And I'm, I'm going to say this and it's going to be controversial. They wanted him to be seen. The reason they allowed him to kind of move around, Judge,

is because they wanted all of this evidence, so-called evidence, to be available after the fact. That's why you do that. I was just at the Chesapeake, Virginia event three weeks ago, three weeks ago tomorrow three weeks ago tomorrow. Yeah, tomorrow. Yeah. And so time flies. And I am I'm a member of law enforcement, Virginia. And I still had to go through multiple layers of security to get to where I needed to be to be next to the president on when he was on stage. And I can tell you for a fact, fact judge nobody was being allowed to wander around

uncontrolled people were channelized they were searched they were they were monitored as they were moving nobody could just wander around the background and you had drones and helicopters both flying over constantly so in this case apparently this kid with a rangefinder and obvious alerting behavior, which is what I think you're familiar with regarding what law enforcement generally looks at when they question someone or see someone on the street alerting behavior. This kid was alerting behavior all the time. What is the bottom line here? That there were elements in law enforcement, state, local, or federal, who wanted him to kill

the former president? I'm saying it on a record, absolutely. There's no way, Judge, you allow this kid with alerting behavior to wander around in an uncontrolled area. It's not done. It was done here because there was something that everybody, they all knew about it. And another thing I'm going to say, which I think maybe if the audience thinks about it, they'll understand what I'm saying. There was a 48 hour kind of dead zone where nobody was really talking about this. Nobody really knew what to say. The reason that there was a- Before or after the shooting? Before or after the shooting, after the shooting, before they could make any official statements, there was like a 48-hour period that after the shooting, nobody really knew what to say.

The reason is because the leadership of the Biden administration, the leadership of, they didn't know what to say because they had anticipated Trump being dead. They really counted on Trump being dead. So they had already, I think, prepared the narrative. And look what they did in the hearings, Judge. The Democrats were already prepared to go after the AR-15. They wanted this to be a threefer. This was not just a twofer. This was a threefer. They wanted Trump dead in a very public way. They wanted his head to explode on stage. I'm sorry I have to be that blunt about it, but that's what they wanted. They wanted an AR to be used because the AR is their boogeyman. They wanted to have the AR be the weapon that killed Trump so then they could go after

gun control and this. And third, and probably most importantly, to send a message that no one should ever dare challenge the political leviathan of the deep state and the Democrat party. It was meant to do kind of three things. So that's what I thought. Yeah. What you're suggesting is a conspiracy so vast. Wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now and say, here's what I overheard my boss is talking about and I have to come forward with it? So you have to understand how these things are done. These things are done where people are quietly recruited. They're permitted to have political beliefs, which are in complete sync with the Democrat party and the ruling class.

And they just, they just are kind of suggested on what they should do and not do. And that's why I can't say which agency I suspect was completely involved, but it wasn't a federal agency was completely involved in helping facilitate this. You're not, you're not going to find this through federal FOIAs. That's my point is, judge, these people have done this before. This is not the first time my friend and your friend, you probably, you know, Matt Hull, right? Yes. play out. There have been events such as the RFK assassination, the JFK assassination, MLK, these things were conspiracies. They did happen and they were all portrayed as lone wolves or lone

gunmen. So, you know, the folks who did this have done an excellent job of looking at the past and figuring out how to apply those successful formats to the present. And yet, I think we're going to come to find there was a very large conspiracy that a lot of folks were involved in. Forgive the language, but you will know what I mean and the audience will know. Is the public pissing contest between local Pennsylvania police and Secret Service a charade? It is. You're kind of going where I don't want to talk. I think there's some folks there. Well, you go as far as you can without saying something you shouldn't say. Everything that happened and everything that is clandestine

is in plain sight. I know this is hard to explain. The best things I did as an operative were always hidden in plain sight. It looked incidental to everything else going on. And we pulled off some amazing... That's the irony of being a clandestine guy. You can't talk about your best operations, but I'll say this. We have seen the real shooters in the media. They have been hidden in plain sight. There is a reason, Judge, that right after the attempt, people were up on that rooftop contaminating the crime scene. Think about this. You're a judge. You've seen all sorts of law enforcement shenanigans. Who contaminates a crime scene of this magnitude? Well, the people who contaminated the crime scene had a reason to contaminate the crime scene. And that's why you see all these deviations. You see things which would never happen

in other circumstances, but it's all done in front of the camera. It's all done concealing the actual clandestine events within the terms of what is normally seen. It's all hidden in plain sight. Do you think since this failed that they will try again? No doubt. And I, several of us who are familiar with security have made strong recommendations to the president's team on what they should do to protect President Trump, because we all believe, and this is my colleague Blaine Holt, General Holt, folks who I've served with my entire career, we are all very concerned and believe that there are adequate and qualified people who would have a complete commitment to protecting him and unfortunately the the the secret service does not have that commitment which is obvious at this point okay um i want you to watch this clip from uh ronald roe who's the acting director it's uh pretty bellicose uh it's about a minute and a half long, but I want you to comment on it and then we'll get on to the Russia. Cut number six, Chris. This is from the second floor of the AGR building.

This point of view is the point of view where the counter sniper team locally was posted. The gold arrow indicates where the shooter fired from. Looking left. Why was the assailant not seen? When we were told that building was going to be covered. This view is a reenactment by one of my agents. Laying flat, there was a five-inch rise on the middle of that roof. The assailant would have had to present his bore over that to get his shot off.

The view underneath reflects the perspective that he would have had. Again, I'd call your attention back to the first exhibit if they'd have looked left. This is what our countersniper team saw. These were discussions that were had between the Pittsburgh field office, the local counterparts, and everyone supporting that visit that day. And that's why when I laid in that position, I could not and I will not and I cannot understand why there was not better coverage or at least somebody looking at that roof line when that's where they were posted. Credible or not? He's lying.

Everything he said was known before the shot was taken. And I don't want to be, I need to be careful here. The very elements he's outlining were known by the people who shot at Trump. That is to say that he's presenting essentially their operations plan for concealing this. Think about it. He's laying out how, oh, yeah, we couldn't see him, but we still, you know, he's telling you how they did it, Judge. He's taking and switching around what they had done, because they knew this. They knew this would come up, and so they've had to conceal everything within the context of how they would

commit themselves to protecting the president. That's what I'm telling you. It's all hidden in plain sight. You just have to start peeling off the layers to figure out that what they're saying is essentially what they intended to do. This was not accidental. This was not random. This was not incompetence. He's lying.

The projectile that hit trump's ear was it fired by crooks or by somebody else so i refer back to the ballistic uh record the the the audio ballistic record bang bang bang those were three very precise shots. One hit Trump. The first one hit Trump. The other ones came very close and hit other folks. Judge, I've had to take hard shots with a rifle. And even in best circumstance, when you're confident, and by the way, there's ample video

showing people were yelling at this kid. People, this kid was under pressure. So, and so he's supposed to have just taken a deep breath and fired off three precise rounds, one of which could have been the kill shot. And then there's a video where they're supposed to, it's supposed to capture him at the very moment the first shot is shot. And it looks like he, he didn't shoot because there's a certain even if you shoot with it i've got an ar but i don't want to get you in trouble i don't want to bring

it up because i've had to redo this for several interviews yeah i understood there's still there's still a bit of a recoil and you can see it and you can see the side of the spent right so i'm just saying that nothing nothing is matching so i think the first three shots were taken by a professional i think the wind had an effect to uh to move that bullet bullet just a little bit to the president's right which helped you know move it off of his ear moved it to his right about a five to seven mile an hour breeze which apparently the shoot and then after the first three rounds which were very very you know accurately aimed very tight then you had the bang bang bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

And I think those were fired by Crooks potentially because I think he figured out something's wrong. And those were just kind of just fired off. Does the government know who fired the shot that hit Trump's ear? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. They know. They know. Well, yeah. They know. They know.

Well, you're talking about attempted murder and you're talking about conspiracy to murder. These are among the most serious crimes in the American lexicon. All right. Fascinating conversation, Tony. But I have some of the other things to get to with you. The war in Ukraine, is this transforming Russia in a way to make it more economically prosperous and unified behind President Putin? So, the only economic prosperity that's being seen right now besides Zelensky getting rich

are the Russians. Let me pull up my stats because I've been answering questions about this over the last few days. So Russia has been moved by the World Bank judge into a high income bracket. That is to say that their economic growth, I can't believe I can't find my notes now, but they're around here somewhere. They, the Russians, have been moved into a high income growth category. Basically, they've got like 11 percent growth overall in some sectors, not all sectors, but a lot. And they've pretty much overcome the sanctions. Here it is.

11.2. They're, they're, they're, they're people that they're basically 11.2%. According to the World Bank growth, that success. Putin has overcome all sanctions. They,

they planned for them. They were never going to work and they failed. And the only people who have actually suffered from sanctions is Germany and the Europeans so at this point there's no incentive for the Russians to change the trajectory of their

activities, plus they just did this large prisoner swap if I were Zelensky right now, I'd be worrying about the terms of that deal because I think the reason this swap happened is because I think the West is starting prisoner swap. If I were Zelensky right now, I'd be worrying about the terms of that deal, because I think the reason this swap happened is because I think the West is starting to recognize there's no there there with Ukraine. And so I think there's real negotiations now ongoing. I think you're going to see a re-evaluation of the Istanbul agreement. I think a lot of folks who are practical are looking at an Istanbul plus type agreement down the road. And I don't know if even the Biden administration has

the strength to continue the charade that the Ukrainians do as well. Let me take a step back, Tony, and see if I understand you. As we speak, the United States government and the Russian government is announcing a massive prisoner swap. We don't know who's in it, except we do know that Evan Gershkovich of the Wall Street Journal, as to whom we are told there is ample evidence of guilt, is among them. And Paul Whelan, who's been held by the Russians for many years, I don't know the level of guilt, but I know he's been held for a long time, is also among them. You are of the view that this exchange, because of the large number of people involved, is an indication of Western cooperation with Russia and Western recognition that Ukraine cannot resist the Russian military. Do I have that correct? Yeah, absolutely. So the collective West has been unwilling to negotiate in any substantial terms with Russia because they wanted to have

negotiations from a position of strength. And the strength they were seeking was victory in Ukraine. They believed their own press about, oh, we're doing well. The Ukrainians are on the march. The Russians are all basically... I can't even remember what Hodges, General Hodges talks about this all the time. And the words he uses are obtuse. They're just like not even remotely accurate. But he was saying the Russians have suffered great, you know, defeats. And I'm not saying the Russians haven't lost on the battlefield at times. I'm saying the overall trajectory of things, the Russians are doing very well, and there's no incentive for the Russians to change what they're doing. I think the West has now recognized that very fact. Things that we've been talking about for the past year, Judge,

I think those in leadership positions are finally accepting. And the Jake Sullivans, the Tony Blinkens, the Lloyd Aust's all have been acting out of a sense of sentiment. The sentiment is we want Ukraine to win. Okay. But it's not going to happen. So I think that sentiment, that feeling that we're going to help Ukraine win is kind of fading. They know it's not going to happen. Here's a statement from a retired British colonel, British Army, Philip Ingram, who says that Russia is losing. I think the statement's absurd, and all of your colleagues on this show have mocked it, but I want you to hear it. Cut number 11. Sure.

It's costing them over a thousand troops a day. In the past 24 hours, the Russians have lost over 1,300 troops. They've lost over 28 artillery systems. They've lost over 12 tanks. And they're losing those sorts of numbers on a daily basis. And that is, frankly, unsustainable. No matter how big your military force is, no matter how capable it is.

What do you think? Well, I'm curious about what MBE stands for. Does that stand for Monstrously Big Ego? At the end of his name, because that's what this is. I think it's some affiliation with a British intel group. I'm not sure. Anyway, well, I'd go with my assessment of what it means. And it's nonsense.

Again, right now, Judge, the World Bank has accurately... World Bank has nothing to do with either side. They're just saying this is what the political... This is what the economic reality is. And then you combine it with the advances, the slow but steady advances on the battlefield. The Russians are not losing. They're gaining ground. They are in a position of strength. And oh, by the way, I guess as of today or sometime within this week, the F-16s all show up. The F-16s, many of the folks in the West now have recognized the F-16s being introduced to the

battle mean absolutely nothing. It's always been a MacGuffin. It was never going to be something that actually shifted or changed the trajectory of the war. So I get fed up with people who supposedly are intelligence officers who are, you know, all know it all. He's lying. That colonel is either lying or stupid. I don't know which it is, but I'm just telling you that I try my best to assess things as they are, not what I want them to be. And no matter how I feel about either side, Ukraine is losing, Russia is winning, and it's just a matter of time before Ukraine collapses within the current trajectory of things. What do you think will happen, I'm switching gears now. If Israel gets into a major fight with Hezbollah and Iran backs Hezbollah and Iran comes under a major

assault from Israel, will Russia sit still? No. I think the Russians have already voted with Tehran. I think they are with Tehran. With that said, the Russians are fairly limited on what they can do directly. I think it's much more likely that you would see Turkey do something. Turkey's actually threatened to do something against the Israelis. Erdogan, who is a member of NATO, I might add, has made bellicose comments and rather aggressive uses of the English language to say that he feels that he must do something. Isn't he just a blowhard? He's been saying this for a year. Blowhards tend to get themselves in trouble. And I think this is a situation where he may get himself in trouble because he said he wants to do something.

He may well try it. I don't know. Remember, he did. Erdogan did leave the back door open for ISIS to become a regional threat that required immense military action. So Erdogan is playing a game that only Erdogan thinks he can benefit from. So at this point, I don't know. But Russia would, I think, try to help Tehran if push comes to shove. Now I'm going to ask you a question that I know you want me to ask you, even though we have not talked about it ahead of time. Did Joe Biden jump or was he pushed? He was pushed. So you know, you've met Joe Biden.

I've met Joe Biden. I've met Joe Biden. Joe Biden is, he would never have left the White House or left being a candidate without someone threatening him. He had to be heavily threatened. I think that I've seen credible reporting from Cy Hersh. I think Cy is correct that basically Obama went to him and said, either you take the gracious way out and drop out or else we're going to 25th Amendment you. I think he was threatened with a coup. And I'm not saying they shouldn't have done the coup. I think the 25th Amendment is adequate and justified.

But you have to understand, the left, the folks in the current left never play. I know people who are traditional liberals, Judge, who I love and get along. Matt Ho is a traditional, I consider a traditional liberal. These other folks are progressives who are essentially just one step away from Stalin. And this was a Stalin-like move where the party wouldn't just do the right thing and use the 25th Amendment to remove him. No, that would have damaged the brand. What they've done, I think, is worse. They've actually taken someone, pushed him out, who actually got 14 million votes as their candidate for president. And now it's like, oh yeah, nevermind. I'm just going to get out and

I'm going to let Kamala do it. Kamala Harris, who did not receive one vote of support in the primary in 2020, didn't even make it to the final. You know, she was not even on the stage of any substance regarding the percentage of support she had then. So I think this is a coup d'etat that we're watching in real time. Tony Schaefer, always a pleasure, my friend, whether we're talking politics, law enforcement, ballistics, or Russia. It's a pleasure to have you on. Look forward to having you back on again soon. Great. Thank you, sir. Good seeing you.

All the best, my friend. Thank you. Wow, a fascinating, fascinating conversation with my longtime friend. Coming up later today at 3 o'clock this afternoon, Eastern, the great Professor John Mearsheimer, and at four o'clock this afternoon, Eastern, the wonderful and fearless Aaron Matei. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.