Judging Freedom - Pentagon Doc Leaks - Why_ w_Larry Johnson

Episode Date: April 11, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 11th, 2023. It's 12 noon here on the east coast of the United States. Larry Johnson joins us today. Larry, I've been very anxious to speak with you as soon as I read about these classified intel documents, some of which were released a week ago today, some of which I say released, posted on the internet, some of which were posted on Good Friday. This show was dark on Good Friday, all of which appear to be authentic. I'll ask you in a moment if, in your view, they are authentic, and all of which appear to pertain to what the government knows or what some analysts want the government to know about the readiness of Ukraine to fight and its military stability and strength vis-a-vis the Russians.

So let me start with the basics. Is there any question in your mind, Larry, about the authenticity of these documents? No. They're 100% authentic in my view. I worked for 30 years looking at documents like this. So this notion that these are fabrications, that's nonsense. And who would have prepared this or in what kind of an intel setting would these documents have been made known to the person who ultimately got them out to the public? Well, the actual report that these documents were contained in was not, think of this as like a classified reader's digest. In other words, you've got a variety of different sources from different parts of the intelligence community bringing in articles together that are then assembled and presented as a daily reading brief. One of these briefs I'm told is 130 pages every day.

And so it comes from different sources. So the people that actually wrote the original intelligence, some of them came from CIA, some came from the Defense Intelligence Agency, some came from the National Security Agency. So it's important to understand that it wasn't just one author of this. And was this more or less in a PowerPoint presentation made in some federal facility? I think you call it a SCIF. You can tell us what that is in a minute, in the presence of numerous people, each of whom were either looking up at the PowerPoint or saw it on their desktops. I mean, for what reason was this Reader's Digest thing prepared other than to inform persons entitled or required to receive it of what was in there?

Well, it's part of the function of the intelligence analyst to produce a daily report that top policymakers can read, but also the people who are producing it can read it. So it's not like it's only the generals are going to see it. You'll have lots of captains and majors, even lieutenants, as long as they have the top secret clearance. The key in this process is this was top secret information, which means no possibility that there's a foreigner involved in this. Foreigners are not given access to top secret information. All right, Larry, let me stop you for a minute because the communication broke up for just a second. Tell us what top secret no foreign is.

Well, top secret by definition is no foreign. No foreign is a designator, a secret document, sometimes the confidential documents. That means not for foreigners. So if you're not a U.S. citizen and you don't have clearances, you don't get the reading. No matter who you are, even if you're the foreign minister of Great Britain, even if you're the Secretary General of NATO, you're not American, you can't see this. Correct. So the United States will not share top secret material. We wouldn't share it with Boris Johnson when he was a Prime Minister in the UK. So it's top secret tells you right away that this comes from a US citizen, because there's no other possible way, except if a foreign government had a

spy inside the US intelligence community,. national security community that accessed this document and then turned it over to a foreign government. That's the only way. Are these documents available for anybody to see now? One of our writers writes that these documents are everywhere, that the originals are out there everywhere. So what did you see and where did you see it? And if anybody wants to look at them, where can they go to see them? Yeah, that's simply not true. I keep hearing about this trove of documents that's on the internet.

I've seen about 10. So that 10, in my view, is not a trove. The media is reporting that there are 53 pages out there. They're not all in one place, that's for sure. But it has been a limited release. But what is out there and what I have seen, it certainly appears valid, genuine. It doesn't necessarily mean that the information contained in it is accurate. Remember, it's also a snapshot in time. Most of this information is from February 28th or March 1st. So it's not, you know, you got to think of this as just one snapshot. It doesn't

provide you a full view of what has gone on since then. Okay. As I understand the documents, there are several revelations, none of which will surprise you, because this is what you look at for a living, but much of which will surprise the American public. First, that American defense officials have not always been truthful. Second, that American defense officials believe that Ukraine's air defenses will be

reduced to near zero by the end of next month. Third, the kill ratio is seven to one, meaning the Russians kill seven Ukraine soldiers for every one Ukrainians kill of Russians. By the way, if that is accurate, do the math. How much longer can Ukraine possibly last? A seven to one kill ratio was a slaughter, isn't it, Larry? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a war of attrition and Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to sustain it. Yeah, but this brief, what these that have been released shows is that there is a big discrepancy between what officials like Milley and Austin say in public and what is actually

being said in classified briefings. As an example, the casualty figures you note, it does show that there's a much higher Ukrainian casualty than Russian casualty level. You also note that some of the information is in terms of the ability of Ukraine to sustain operations, particularly the collapse of their air defense system, the lack of artillery shells. That's all in the briefings, and yet Milley and Austin insist, oh, yeah, Ukraine's doing great. They're going to march on to victory.

So they're just, it's not even putting lipstick on a pig. It's just making something up. Here's Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin testifying under oath, Larry. So I want your comments on this. Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The questioner is Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker. Take a listen. With regard to your optimism about Ukraine having the upper hand, that is what you told me yesterday. It is. Now, Ukrainians have inflicted significant casualties on the Russians,

and they have depleted their inventory of armored vehicles in a way that no one would have ever imagined. And so now we see Russia reaching for T-54 and T-55 tanks because of the level of damage that the Ukrainians have inflicted on them. And we have in the meantime been... And reaching for those tanks demonstrates what to you, sir? It demonstrates that their capability is waning and we've uh continued to witness them be challenged with artillery munitions and other

things and they're reaching out to iran or reaching out to uh to north korea i think you know we'll see an increase in the fighting in the spring as conditions for maneuver improve do you believe there's a real chance for significant Ukrainian advancements between now and the beginning of winter? I believe there's a chance and we're doing everything that we can do to ensure that they have their best opportunity to be successful, Senator.

Your comments on Secretary Austin's candor and intellectual honesty, if any? No intellectual honesty, and he's lying. That's the simplest way to put it. Larry, I wouldn't have expected anything sharper or anything less sharp or crisp from you, but please go ahead. Well, it's just when you look at what's in these documents, the documents are saying as of 1 March that Ukraine does not have enough artillery to even fire 1,500 shells a day while the Russians are firing 20,000.

And the documents make clear that the ability of the United States and Europe to provide adequate supplies is not there. So, you know, that's what he's been. He's seeing it. His aides are seeing it. He should know that. As far as the depletion of armor, that's the problem with Ukraine, not Russia. He's, you know, maybe he confused and read, you know, a form of dyslexia where ukraine looks like russia i don't know

but uh it is it's ridiculous is this just part of the job uh that high ranking uh officials in the military would lie under oath uh to congress i mean the great yankee pitcher i say this because i'm a yankee fan roger clemens is the last person prosecuted for lying under oath to Congress. And it was about the contents of his urine during a urine test that the Yankees compelled him to take. And he was prosecuted. First time a hung jury, second time acquitted. I'm glad he was acquitted. But this is about life and death.

This is about human beings being killed. This is about government expenditure in a secret war. Is anything going to happen? No. No. I mean, this is ultimately about leadership. Because what Austin does by making these kinds of statements, when this collapse occurs, and it could occur within the next couple of weeks, it may be two or three months, the bottom line is Ukraine does not have the ability to sustain a war of attrition against Russia, and especially because neither the United States nor NATO has resources to sustain that fight. So when the class comes, it further undermines any confidence

in military leadership. One of these days, there may be a real emergency where we have to trust someone like Austin. And just like the old fable, the children's story of the boy who cried wolf, nobody will pay attention to him anymore. Because they will assume you've lost before.

Tell me if this next person is trustworthy, Admiral Kirby, lamenting that this happened and saying they don't know who did it. So is this an intentional leak or are they really not know it? But you listen to the admiral sure and let us know what you think we don't know uh who's responsible for this and we don't know if uh they have more that they intend to post so we're watching this and monitoring it as best we can but the truth and the honest answer to your question is we don't know. Incredible.

Yeah. Well, Kirby proves that the broken clock can be right twice a day. Usually what he's saying is just so off base, but in this case, he's absolutely right. They don't know. I think the most likely source for this is let's call it an Edward Snowden type lead. Somebody rank and file on the inside who was just disgusted by what they saw as the public lying by senior officials and the reality of what's going on on the ground. Really, the slaughter of Ukrainians and the slaughter is being enabled by the United States and by NATO. It would be one thing if trained troops with proper equipment were being sent out to fight the Russians, but that's not what's happening. They are press-ganging guys off the street, giving them a week or two of training, basic familiarization, then they're throwing them into the front, and they're completely ill-equipped, unarmed to deal with the threat. What do you think, President Zelensky?

But let me reframe the question. Colonel McGregor tells us, I suspect you agree, that the commander in chief of the Ukraine military forces, I think General Zhuzhnov, I may not have the name right. It's a credible, it's a credible, it's a illusion. The one that did the interview for The Economist magazine with Zelensky sitting there like a bump on a log next to him. That this general is credible and is well-respected in the military community of generals, Russian and Western. What do you think their goal is if they're taking boys and

old men off the street, training them for a week or two, and then putting them into the slaughter? I mean, this can't last. No, it can't. And you have to wonder at what point will these officers, you know, let's say reach a breaking point. But, you know, candidly, Judge, we've seen sort of the same disgraceful military leadership here in the United States. You didn't have a single senior officer, for example, during the start of the war in Iraq in 2003, stand up and resign and say, wait, this is wrong. I'm not going to go along with this.

There is a habit of these senior officers when they get to the top that they don't want to jeopardize what they see as their retirement or their reputation, at least within polite society. So this is nothing that's just unique to Ukraine. We've seen it actually across the board. And, you know, these gentlemen, they have enough experience.

They're not without knowledge. And yet just the fact that they are continuing to pour young men. It's not just young men. It's middle-aged guys and it's guys in their 60s that are being sent to the front without the full complement of training and equipment to be effective. Well, you're sending people poorly trained, inadequately trained, barely trained to the front. You have a seven to one kill ratio, which is somewhere between a turkey shoot and a slaughter. Anybody can do the math, but here's the man responsible for that. Now, there's a translation of President Zelensky.

It sounds like it's done by a computer. I could be wrong. It's a little tough to hear, so we're going to play it for you twice. But here's President Zelensky on what his goal is. The world should know respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea, when there is freedom there, just like everywhere else in Ukraine. The world should know respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea, when there is freedom there, just like everywhere else in Ukraine. Only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea when there is freedom there, just like everywhere else in Ukraine. Only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea. Now, that is a military impossibility,

not improbability, impossibility. Is it not? Yeah. Russia will not give up Crimea because of its historical roots. You know, the real irony here, Zelensky ran on a platform to get elected of seeking peace with Russia with respect to the Donbass. I mean, that was his promise, that he was going to do a complete turnaround. And once he was in office, boy, you talk about an about face. He did a complete 180 degree. And as far as we know, unlike Richard Nixon during Vietnam, there is no back channel communication between Moscow, Kiev, and Washington because the Americans won't permit it. I wouldn't go that far. I think there are still some lines of communication open

between at least between American military and Russian military to de-conflict. But it's not a warm, open conversation, not at all. And frankly, Russia has developed great distrust about whatever it has heard from Blinken or from Jake Sullivan or from Biden. So there's that lack of trust and confidence. In fact, it's not just with Russia. You've seen it from China as well. The United States has completely alienated itself in the diplomatic front. One of the takeaways from these documents is the effectiveness of the American intelligence community. The documents purport to show

that the U.S. knows Russian military plans before they're executed and can inform Ukrainian military of this. So if the U.S. knows when and where the Russians are going to strike and can tell the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainians are still getting the you-know-what kicked out of them, how much longer is this going to last? Surely, whatever the U.S. knows, Putin knows that they know. Am I right? Yeah. You know, how much longer is this going to last? Surely whatever the U.S. knows, Putin knows that they know. Am I right? Yeah. The world we live in with what the, you know, the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance platforms, not just airplanes, satellites, balloons, drones, makes it virtually impossible to hide troop movements, to hide gathering formations and vehicles. It's not like in World War II you could create a fake army with General Patton and then some

inflatable tanks and artillery pieces. You can't do that anymore simply because of the robust nature of the ISR capabilities on both sides, both Russian, NATO. When I say NATO, I'm referencing Ukraine because Ukraine is a de facto war with NATO. I suppose the next step is the FBI will find some person that they will use technology to trace all of this back to, and that person will be prosecuted and sentenced to 20, 30, 40 years in jail. And then maybe a President Trump or a future president, whoever it might be, will commute the sentence or pardon the person. People get punished for revealing the truth. They don't get rewarded in this country. Well, and whoever took these documents took care to try to at least hide their tracks

because these documents had to be printed off in what's called a sensitive compartmented information facility, a SCIF. And in that SCIF, you only handle top secret material. So you can't take a camera in there and start taking photographs of documents on the table. You're not allowed to take any kind of communications. How would you physically get that data out of the skiff? You fold it up and you can put it into a bag. I've worked in skiffs where you're allowed to take in backpacks. So you can put it into a backpack. Was your backpack inspected when you arrived and when you left? No, no, no, never. And I'm talking about 23 years.

So you could go into a skiff. How big is a skiff? Is it the size of a closet or is it the size of a football field? It varies according to the particular joint operations center. But at least, you know, it would be a good, large enough room to accommodate, say, 20 to 25 people. And then you'd have one or two printers there. So the document would be printed off. And the pretext for printing it off is that, hey, the boss wants to see the pages. So you're going to print it off and take it out to the boss. And that could be done. And then once you get it out there, you go to the bathroom, fold it up, put it in your clothes, walk out.

There are a variety of ways. You can put it in what's called a burn bag. Every day, documents that you're not going to use, just toss them in a burn bag. They're not shredded at that point. The bag's taken out, taken to a facility where those documents are supposed to be shredded and destroyed. So there are a variety of ways that this could have gotten out of that skiff. somewhere, whether it was at a civilian intelligence organization like the CIA or a military intelligence organization like DIA or at a military command, the European command over in Stuttgart, Germany. It could be a variety, and that's what the investigators from both the Pentagon and the

Department of Justice are going to be trying to run down. Larry Johnson, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks, Judge. If you like what you just saw and heard, Larry, of course, joins us every week. Like and subscribe. You know more as we get it. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.