Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : Who Runs US Foreign Policy?

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : Who Runs US Foreign Policy?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 10th, 2025. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski will be here in just a moment. Just who is in charge of US foreign policy. Well, the answer might surprise you, but first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.

I'm so glad I bought my gold. It's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world they are falling in value. Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.

As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.

Colonel Kwiatkowski, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you and welcome here. Is it even conceivable in your view that the massive drone attacks on four separate Russian air bases, two of them 2,500 miles apart from each other and two or three civilian locations, could have come to pass without American or British permission and know how. Yeah, I think I think that's fair. That's that is the case. Their know how access to some of their surveillance capability, information, advice. Yeah, all that is at a lower level.

I mean, at definitely at a working level We help do that and the Brits obviously and and others probably um, you know The question is did the president know or or did senior? Well the president and the executive suite know And and the real problem we have is that if he did not know that his own assets, assets of the United States, were utilized in violating a treaty, a nuclear treaty that we have, and attacking a nuclear armed enemy directly, if he didn't know that, then we should be up in arms here at home

about the dysfunction in Washington But yeah, I have you know from what I'm saying Definitely we were a part of that. I Agree with you. I think it's a catch-22 if he knew Well, that's crazy that he should have authorized it and he lied to President Putin if he didn't know which seems more Likely since he's not a detail-oriented person, well then he should have known because the ultimate question is who's running American foreign policy? We'll get to that in a minute. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov

yesterday actually had a meeting with some of our friends, Pepe Escobar, George Galloway, Larry Johnson, saying 100% the British and probably American special forces. I'll ask you about that in a minute. Chris Cutt, number eight. It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible, but it would be absolutely helpless without the support I was tempted to say Anglo-Saxons, but probably without Saxons, just without the support of the British. Although you never know, probably by inertia, some US special forces would be

involved in that, but the British are actually on behind all those things. I'm 100% sure. When he says he's 100% sure, what does that tell you? Does it tell you he has intel on which to base that surety, that certainty? Yeah. If Lavrov is saying that, then he's seen data reports or other evidence that has convinced him that that's the case. Yeah, and really this war has been going on for a long time. We know Russian capabilities of just like ours, of monitoring the kind of communications that go on is very good.

So we would expect that they know, just as they know other things, as they figure out who's behind or what happened in various other things that have occurred during the past, certainly over three years. You know, we expect that they know and that they can track and they can figure out.

So when he says that he's confident, then I believe him. When President Trump says that he didn't know anything about it, I kind of believe him, but I believe Lavrov more. But I think Trump also is, even though we have the capability, intelligence-wise or whatever, to really ensure that our president, whoever that president is, is well informed. Our process is a lot different than what's going on in Russia right now. Very different. So think of the implications here, if he is correct. A nuclear power attacked another nuclear power and the target of the attack was part of the triad,

one of the legs used to deliver nuclear weapons. I mean, under the law, as horrible as this sounds, this would allow Putin to attack London in retaliation or in anticipation of further attacks. That's right. That's right. And I don't understand why it doesn't seem as if the London politicians, whether, you know, labor or not, whoever is supporting the government in London, I don't understand why they don't see that. They seem... have we gotten so far out of touch with what war really looks like and how it really works? Because

that's a very rash situation that they've put themselves into, a very dangerous situation, and they seem to be going on as if it's nothing. So I'm, you know, I'm glad I'm not living in Britain. I'm glad I don't have to participate in a government that incompetent, but ours is not much better. Why do the British want war? Do you know, do you have any idea? Is it to get the public's mind off their terrible economy

and the unpopularity of the labor government? Would they be that dastardly as to risk a nuclear war over political popularity and economic failure? You know, the people obviously, no people in any country want war, so the people of Britain don't want it. But the government of Britain and the people that for decades control British government, they still imagine an empire that no longer exists. But it is a financial capital. It is a services-oriented capital that has this long colonial history. It has the connections and influence over places like the United States and other places. You know, they, war for the elites in Britain is not, they see it as profitable, I think. I think that that's not very smart at this stage, but it seems like that they do see

that there's profit there. Either that that or they have extremely good intelligence on Moscow and they are presuming with confidence that Moscow is not going to attack them. I mean, you know, the elites who make the decisions, we have the same in our country, they really don't, you know, they're playing games that really, they don't cost them as much as they would cost the people if a major war broke out. They see profit, they see their ability to survive war, to profit from war, to fight and survive nuclear war.

I mean, we know that our elites in this country talk about this. The Rand Corporation has put together proposals and designs and think pieces on how we in the United States would fight and survive a nuclear war. This is not how normal people think, but it is how people in government think. And so... Well, here's Secretary of Defense Hegseth under oath saying the United States didn't know about this. Chris, the first part of cut number 11. Are we seeing the ushering in of a new era of warfare? The use of drones from afar.

After all, these drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden for a great span of time, and then activated from 2,500 miles away. Are we prepared, both defensively and offensively, Mr. Secretary? It was a daring and very effective operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are tracking in real time inside Ukraine and taking that feedback to help us better understand how we can better produce more lethal, attritable drones. So you of course are familiar with the concept of the five eyes, the five English-speaking countries that share intelligence. Is there any credibility to what the Secretary of Defense just said, not with respect to the lethality of the attack, but with respect to the foreknowledge of the United States?

He may be speaking for himself. I know he said the United States. I know he's not trusted by the deep state by any means, so he may not have been told about it, but it was very interesting. He said we track drones in Ukraine. We track drones everywhere on the he said we track drones in Ukraine. That's not what, we track drones everywhere. On the planet we track them. So he was careful to act like we're not, we don't spy on Russia. Well, of course we do.

And the Five Eyes make a living from doing that, among other places that they collect intelligence on. So yeah, was he sworn he was he sworn in when he's before he answered questions there because it doesn't sound like he's telling you know, it's very interesting When you say was he sworn in when? Alberto Gonzalez was George W Bush's Attorney general he insisted on not being sworn in. What, as if that would justify lying?

Well, there are two potential crimes. We know this from the Roger Clemens case. One is perjury, lying under oath. The other is lying to Congress, whether you're under oath or not. Clemens, of course, it's a great story. Clemens, of course, was charged with're under oath or not. Clements of course was charged with lying under oath about, are you ready for this? The contents of his urine. First trial was a hung jury, the second trial was a quiddle. In the case of Secretary Hedgeseth, I don't know if he was sworn in, but either way, and the penalty is the same, five years per lie. But think of it this way, shouldn't he have known? If Sergey Lavrov is right and American special forces were involved. Somebody with brass on their shoulders commands special forces

and that person has a duty to tell whoever commands that person. Isn't this pretty basic military operation? You've got to send this information up the food chain. Yep. Well, you would think that they do, but Lavrov's translator or maybe Lavrov himself, they use the word inertia involved via inertia. So the fact that we're in bed with MI6, in bed with the British, in bed with NATO, you know, we're communicating at those levels, it's very likely that detail, that the not detail oriented Donald Trump, obsessed with a great many issues, is not really interested in that and is not putting pressure to find out what's going on

from his commanders. And so this information may be, just like many times before, where we've had threats that people in the lower parts of the government know about, and they push it up the chain, and at some point it stopped. So if nothing else, Hedgeseth should, as Secretary of Defense, should be finding out for sure

because he may have lied. He may have lied and be accountable for those five years per lie. He may have done that unknowingly and he should be aware that he may have done that and he should demand that the machinery he works that he oversees produces the truth for him. What happened? He should be able to do that. One of our viewers in the chat room says, well, Heg says wife knew because it was on signal. Of course, that's a joke, but she was on signal. That's that were that were revealed. Now what about the intelligence community? I would think John Ratcliffe would be even more humiliated than Pete Hexseth by not knowing what he's doing. Scott Ritter says there's a group called Russia House, which is basically Moscow station CIA, and

they're like their own government. They do whatever they want. And if they don't want Langley, the CIA headquarters, to know about it, they just don't tell them. But they're spending money, people die, they're risking a nuclear war. Shouldn't the bosses know about this? Shouldn't somebody be fired for not knowing? Or does Trump, in your view, just not see this as potentially serious as it is?

Trump does not come from a government, a security or military background. And so he doesn't think, I think, in those terms. He thinks that these things happen and that somebody below him is taking care of it. And that those people can be trusted. He can delegate to those people because they're professionals, because they're patriots. And he makes that assumption, which is the same assumption I think most Americans who don't work inside of the government or don't work for the military also believe, okay,

this is this idea that if you have a uniform on or if you're chartered by your government to secure the nation, that you are honorable, that you are truth, you're focused on the truth, you're focused on effectiveness, you don't lie, you don't evade. And that is a wrong assumption, that's a dangerous assumption. And the fact is our president comes from the majority of our society who believes that, who makes that assumption.

So I think Trump is benefiting greatly from his personal conversations with Putin. I think that's probably the straightest information that he is getting right now about what is happening. And I think the questions and the topics that they discuss are probably guiding his expectations of his own staff. This is all I can say, yes, Ratcliffe should be, he should have submitted his resignation, okay? If he can't tell the truth and answer

how this happened, okay? This onslaught of one nuclear power against another that could lead to something very easily out of control, very easily deadly for millions of people. If Radcliffe doesn't offer his resignation over this, if he doesn't even think it's a problem, then of course he should be fired and Trump should be demanding the truth from the people that work for him. Right, right. Trump should be. He's accountable here. President Trump should be as outraged as President Putin was.

Yeah. Here he is attempting to get close to the President of Russia in order to bring about a grand reset, not just the end of the war in Ukraine, but a reset of economic and cultural relations between the two countries, and maybe even bigger than that if it involves China and India as well. And a bunch of guys in the CIA who draw a federal paycheck who work for him are sabotaging it by attacking part of the Russian nuclear triad. I asked Alastair Crook yesterday who is in charge of US foreign policy. He is animated very much so against Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal. I know you are as well. Poor Graham is almost a joke. He's so out there. But we'll get to him in a minute. But Graham and Blumenthal have put

together this legislation that Senator Graham claims has 80 co-sponsors in the Senate. If the same proportion of co-sponsors in the House were to join in this thing, it would be veto proof. This forces the President's hand, denies him the ability to enter into an agreement with Iran that allows any nuclear enrichment, even though Haaretz reports this morning that Netanyahu is going to relent on the civilian nuclear enrichment. Who knows if that report is correct. But back to Alistair Crook, that would force the president to impose secondary sanctions on Russia. So anybody that sells a product to Russia or buys a product from Russia would be sanctioned. So with that as background, here is

Oster Crooks answer. I invite your attention to the last two words he uses. Chris, cut number five. He's terrified of the Senate with 80% of the Senate opposed either to the Iran deal or to his deal normalization with Russia and want an escalation. This is very dangerous. So who's in charge of foreign policy? The Russians may be asking himself. Well, not President Trump, but it will be split up between the deep state Congress and Israel. but it will be split up between the deep state, the Congress and Israel. Deep state Congress and Israel. Does any of that surprise you?

Can you subscribe to that theory or would you answer it differently? No, I mean, he's much wiser and he answered it correctly and much more wisely. But I absolutely agree. The British always sound smart. It's just the way they talk. I love that. I'm not ganging saying's just the way they talk. I love that.

I'm not ganging saying him. He is truly brilliant. So are you. Go ahead. I think we're seeing, to some extent, people in Congress who have the trip that was taken to Kiev by Blumenthal and... I can't even say his name, the South Carolina senator. You know, these guys, Graham, these guys taking a trip like that, hugging, clapping each other on the back after this thing, you know, this is insane.

That is a violation of the Logan Act. It's a violation of the Hatch Act. This is criminal and they shouldn't have done it. They did it on taxpayer dollars. So this is directly undermining the president, number one. The deep state, of course, has been undermining Trump in particular four years his first term and five and a half, six months his second term. But they also undermine other presidents.

They do, the deep state conducts the policy that it wants. And then when you look at the deep state and Congress, you can't leave Israel out. Because we are Israel's tail dog, whatever. I mean, we serve a function for Israel's both domestic and foreign policy, a policy that Israel pursues that they could not pursue unless the US backs them, and I mean backs them morally or immorally as the case is, backs them with aid and advantages and loans and weapons unlimited without conditions. This is Israel could not conduct, could not

conduct a genocide certainly, but could not conduct itself as an entity without the US support. So from an Israeli perspective, it is very wise to invest in Washington, to invest in controlling Congress, to invest in populating the deep state, to invest in influencing and blackmailing people that you need to blackmail, up to and including the president. But you know, it's interesting because a couple, three, four weeks ago we mentioned Myrev Siren, who was an Israeli IDF, former IDF soldier, think tank, pro-Israeli Zionist, who Waltz had put into the National Security Council to work the, I think it was the Iran-Israel desk. And then shortly thereafter Waltz screws up and

gets fired from the NSC. But they kept Marin and they kept a number of others. But now there's a big washout in the National Security Council and and Sarin among others has has been removed. They've been, their term has been ended. So I think Trump would probably So I think Trump would probably agree with Alistair Crook on this as well. I certainly do. I think most of the... Can Trump get a handle on the deep state?

Can any president? Well, if any president can get a handle on it, Trump is in a good position to do so. Because he, you know, he may not care about the details of the Ukraine war in terms of details, but he has been obsessed with his enemies in Washington for what, 10 years or more. They have harmed him personally, they have attacked him incessantly, legally, publicly, reputationally, they've tried to tie his hands, impeached him how many times, I don't know. So he understands the deep state is against him and opposes him and is his enemy.

And Trump of course is a fighter. There's no doubt. I mean he's a fighter. So he is fighting the deep state. So I think he's sensitive to things that are going on in that realm and I think we saw this with many of his appointments. I mean Hegs, Head Seth, who is not particularly qualified, but he is loyal to the president. And Trump put him on top of the most corrupt and expensive and devastating part of the country. I mean, this is the one trillion dollar pentagon. And he hasn't done anything to the pentagon. He hasn't audited it, he's given it more money, more promises, all this other stuff, but

Trump values that loyalty in that agency. He hasn't really cut the legs out from under the CIA very well, but there's other parts of the deep state that Trump is looking at, and I think he's looking at Israeli influence. The very dangerous place to look, that's it is dangerous for him To look there. I'm thinking about that conversation and have with him shortly before he left his first term When I asked him why he didn't really reveal the JFK documents And he said well if they showed you what they show me you wouldn't have released them either And I said who's they and what did they show you? And he said, someday when we're not on a phone call, listen to my 15 people, I'll tell you.

Well, he hasn't told me, but was kind of terrifying the implications that he raised. Karen, I have to go. We have a Pep Eskobar in Moscow coming up in just about three or four minutes, but thank you very much for your time. Very, very interesting observations. Deeply appreciated. Hope we can see you again next week.

Sure enough. Thank you, Judge. Appreciate it. Of course. And as mentioned in just a couple of minutes, if you're watching us live, but at 3.30 Eastern today from Moscow, Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You