Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Tulsi Gabbard and Warrantless Spying.

Episode Date: January 20, 2025

Ray McGovern: Tulsi Gabbard and Warrantless Spying.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 Monday, January 20th, 2025. Ray McGovern will be here with us in just a moment. But first this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years. Save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars. The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest. I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct, not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks

have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold. And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do. You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall. Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years. They help me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Ray McGovern, my dear friend, thank you for joining us. There's a lot of concern expressed

in Haaretz this morning and in the Western press that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might very well sabotage the ceasefire with Hamas in order to keep the extremists in his government and in order to keep him in office as the Prime Minister. Are those fears legitimate? Of course they are, Judge. I would be surprised if there weren't those fears. It's almost certain to happen, given the record of the last, well, the last several months since October 7th of last year, or October 7th of the year before. So yeah, a lot is at stake. The construction of this agreement is so interesting that it's easily manipulated, and I would be shocked if Netanyahu doesn't put the kibosh on it one way or another. I wonder if when soon-to-be President Donald Trump famously or

infamously said a few weeks ago, if the hostages are not released, they'll be hell to pay, he was speaking to Israel. Well, I believe he was, and that's the $64 question. If Netanyahu acts as I expect he will, not right away, but within a month, two months or so, then the question would be, how will Trump react to this? Will he react with a knee-jerk pledge of solidarity to Netanyahu? I don't know. We know what the previous president would have done and did do. I don't know about President Trump, and neither does Netanyahu. So maybe there's some saving grace on there. Maybe there's some kind of break on how badly Netanyahu will violate this agreement, but sure as hell he's going to do that. Yeah.

I wonder if it's a ceasefire or just an inauguration pause. Well, Trump had a lot to do with this. He has claimed credit for it, and the credit surely goes to him, largely. I guess McGurk and the others working for Biden did facilitate the talks in a way, but nothing would have happened without Trump intervening. So the question is, you know, how strongly Trump feels about Netanyahu leading our country down the primrose path, as he has been doing for at least the last year and a half. We'll see. That's the thing that Netanyahu, first and foremost, has to contend with. So there's a degree of uncertainty, but knowing Netanyahu, he'll test the waters and see what happens. They always prefer, that is the Israelis, to ask for forgiveness rather than permission

before they do these things. I don't know how well that will work with Donald Trump. There's no question about his loyalty to Israel, but I don't think he has a level of personal loyalty to Netanyahu. This spat about whether or not the prime minister and his wife, Sarah, were invited to the inauguration, which is not a big deal here, has apparently humiliated him in the Israeli press. And it turns out that he was not invited. Even though he said he was going to go, then I think somebody said to him, hey, baby, you weren't invited. Don't show up. You won't get in. And of course, there was that X message that Trump's ex-machine there reposted for everyone to see

calling, well, repeating the words of Jeff Sachs saying that Netanyahu was an SOB. I will refrain from commenting on that, but not only is it true, but the big deal, of course, is that Trump has not denied that his little fingers or those that were under his orders retweeted that, and that's a big deal. You know what Jeff said before he said SOB, pardon me, a little cold. I actually feel better than I sound.

What Jeff said before he said SOB was to catalog the Middle Eastern wars into which Netanyahu personally has dragged the American government. I believe that that's what animated Trump. And that's the message Trump wanted to get out there. Hey, BB, I know what you've done. Don't think you're going to get away with this with me. Yeah. And Jeff was careful to include Iraq. And that's big because of all the reasons why the U.S. did this act of aggression, a war of aggression against Iraq. The biggest factor, as history has shown now, has been Netanyahu and the Israeli intervention here with the Pentagon and the others pretty much stacking the deck so that Bush and Cheney and the neocons of that day could prevail and attack Iraq and occupy it. And you know the results of all that.

Is the ceasefire a defeat for Israel, or is it a defeat, maybe temporary, for Netanyahu? Well, I think it's too early to say, really. We'll see what Netanyahu and the Israelis do. Apparently, Smotrich is hanging in there. So Netanyahu is still going to have a government for a while. I just don't know how to look at it right now. Certainly, it was forced upon Netanyahu. And that's certainly not a victory for him. But, you know, he's a pretty clever guy.

He's going to maneuver, and it all depends on whether this real estate fellow from New York, who's now our president, is up to him and able to outmaneuver Netanyahu, which is quite a task, if you ask me. Do you think that Israel and Iran are each preparing for war with each other, even as we speak? I think we can breathe more easy now, Judge. You'll recall last week, or maybe it was 10 days ago, when I repeated the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, saying that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003, and every estimate since then yearly had reiterated their judgment.

Well, none other than Bill Burns repeated verbatim what I had said to you and others just a couple of days later. So the intelligence community is sticking firm on this one. It's quite a wonderment, okay? So what am I saying here? That plus this new treaty, Iran and Russia. Russia's not going to conclude a treaty with Iran unless it has a commitment for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Doesn't need to now. It's got hypersonic weapons. And I think that's also a factor in the way, in the reality that we can breathe easier now. Blinken and Sullivan are gone.

Netanyahu has to be more careful. And the Russians are in the mix in a bigger way than they were before. Well, the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon is not enough to deter Prime Minister Netanyahu from claiming they have a nuclear weapon and using that as an instrument to drag the U.S. into war. I mean, this is right out of George Orwell's playbook. You need that enemy out there. You need that foreign enemy in order to unite people behind you, whether it's real or fanciful. Agree? Of course. I disagree. No, I agree completely, Judge, but he's been doing this for years. He did it at the UN with these little diagrams

and so forth. They're just at the edge. And even Blinken, even Blinken two weeks ago said, okay, yeah, they're enriching to the fairly well, but we still haven't seen them working on a nuclear weapon, but they could get

one, you know. Even Blinken. So we have Blinken and Bill Burns. Those are the new elements. I had wondered whether that judgment, that key judgment during Bush and Cheney that prevented them from going to war with Iran right before they left in 2008. The estimate was in November 2007. Even Bush in his memoir said, that deprived me of the military option, for how can I authorize a strike on the nuclear facilities of a country where the intelligence community says that there is no nuclear weapons program?

Bummer. He wrote, he didn't say bummer, but he wrote that in his book. You have to read these things. His memoir says precisely that. That's a quote. Wow. I don't think this will deter Netanyahu from attempting to whip up a frenzy in the U.S. using his donor class of people and the more than half of the Congress,

whom the donor class has influenced by their donations, to push in that direction. Switching gears, does the CIA, when it spies in the United States, contrary to its charter and to federal laws, give a damn about the Constitution? The question is who the director is and whether he feels that he has to follow the president's instructions. Now, the legislation provides that the director of national intelligence now, but the CIA director as well, shall perform such other functions and duties as the president shall from time to time direct. That's a direct quote.

Now, if the president says do this, as apparently Biden told Sullivan to tell the CIA, that's usually how it works, the National Security Advisor tells the head of the CIA, blow up that Nord Stream pipeline, then he salutes and he does it. He doesn't care whether it's legal or illegal, he doesn't care what, he's protected by what he thinks is this provision in this law that's part of the legal basis now. So surveilling Americans, well, they're in these fusion centers now with the FBI. So there's no real break on what the CIA and the FBI can do together. You have the Homeland Security folks in the mix now. It's a real jungle.

They don't pay much attention to the law. The Fourth Amendment is out the window, as you wrote very briefly, very recently, and a really good roundup. I'd add one thing to your wrap-up, because I remember when we talk about Tulsi Gabbard changing her mind. Well, I remember in 2007 when Obama was running for president. Now, he was really, really strong in the spring of 2007. I'm going to hold those giant telecom companies that gave all those phone records to the government. I got to hold them accountable. In June of 2007, John Brennan joins Obama's advisory council, so to speak. All of a sudden,

Obama says, you know, I changed my mind. I think it's okay. I'm not going to hold those giant telecoms accountable for violating Nilly Willie, the Fourth Amendment. I remember on the 4th of July, I wrote a stinging little piece saying, look, Obama, you can't fool us, okay? You say, okay, you want to vote for, what was it, McCain in those days? Okay, forget about it. Well, this is insulting. You can't do this. And I said, for this intelligence officer, that's it for my support. So there's precedent for this, and it's really an awful precedent. And I'm really sorry to see it. Tulsi Gabbard now, I said, oh yeah, well, I used to oppose Section 703, but I want to get nominated. I want to get approved.

I want to get confirmed. Well, the section that she opposed, and she opposed it. Oh, yeah, vocally. And vocally on the floor of the House of Representatives was the section that, without getting too much into the weeds and how it happened and the history of it, if you want to see the history of it, I've written about this extensively, is the section that allows warrantless spying on Americans in direct contravention to the Fourth Amendment,

which requires search warrants. The CIA doesn't get search warrants. The NSA doesn't get search warrants. The NSA doesn't get search warrants. FISA is a facade. The only time anybody uses FISA is if they think that it's going to produce evidence of a crime and there's got to be some sort of a justification

for a legal judicial basis to acquire the evidence. We understand that. She opposed the use of 702. And then two weeks ago, when confronted with certain Republican senators threatening to hold up or vote against her nomination, changed her mind, and it infuriated me. Libertarians and those of us who believe that the Constitution means what it says were overjoyed, even though she's an ardent Zionist, when she was announced. Now, forget about it. She's just like everybody else.

This is the section of the law that the FBI used to spy on Mr. Donald Trump in 2015 and 2016, and President Trump in his first term in office, and now she's in favor of it. Right. And, Judge, to your credit, you put it in the context of our Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, and of what the British were doing to us under general warrants.

And so the Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, says the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause supported by warrants or by oath or affirmation, and particularly defining the places to be searched and the people or things to be seized, period, end quote. It's my favorite amendment. That's why I've tried to commit it to memory. And it's so damn important, so basic. So you were infuriated? Me too. And this is the second time when a person of high stature that I thought was pretty good on these things, namely Obama, now Tulsi Gabbard.

Well, infuriation is required and due and actually required in these circumstances. You know, it's the most specific, precise language in the Constitution. It's there for a reason to assure that what the British did to the American colonists, like general warrants, would never happen here. A general warrant is not based on probable cause of crime. It doesn't specify the place to be searched or the thing to be seized. It just tells the bearer of the warrant, search wherever you want, seize whatever you find. It drove the colonists crazy. It was arguably the last straw that triggered the revolution. And now we're back to it. Well, we've been back to it for since the Bush administration, but now we're openly and notoriously back to it for a Prince of Bush administration. But now we do it openly and notoriously back to it. Yeah, just a little footnote here, which you know better than I, but after drafting most of the Constitution, George Mason, my fellow Virginian, he went to James Madison who co-drafted and he said, Jim, I can't sign this thing. Jim said, come on, you drafted it.

He said, no, I can't sign this thing because it has no Bill of Rights. Correct. Madison said, I promise you, George, if you just keep your mouth shut about this, get this passed, I will send horsemen up and down the eastern seaboard. We'll get that Bill of Rights ratified. I promise. Well, five states. Here's a telling fact about the ability to leave the union peacefully. Five states

threatened to leave if a Bill of Rights were not enacted. The other states took that threat so seriously. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, passed in about three or four months' time. Let's see if joining the Union was irrevocable by the time Lincoln decided to kill fellow Americans, but yet the people that put the union together believed you could leave. All right.

Crazy world that we live in. Larry Johnson ranting and raving this morning, and I agree with him. When I asked him what I asked you, why are the people released by Hamas called hostages, but the people released by the Israelis called prisoners? Because the Israelis and their acolytes in the Western press control the narrative.

That's why. Exactly right. Pleasure, Ray. Thank you very much. Sorry for my froggy voice. We'll see you again at the end of the week with the afforestated Larry Johnson. Let me just say, Judge, that today we honor Dr. Martin Luther King as well. And if I could just take a moment, I want to quote from his letter from the Birmingham City Jail because it pertains

to what we do on this program. One of the greatest pieces of literature in American history, and it was scribbled on a notepad in a jail cell. Go ahead, please. Well, the part of that that I focus on that is usually neglected is a little gory, but I'm going to say it, all right? Sure. Like a boil that can never be cured unless it is opened up with all its pus-flowing ugliness, the natural medicines of air and light, so too injustice must be revealed. With all the friction, it's revelation causes to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. So this is just my way of saying, Judge,

that I appreciate your providing the scalpel to let the pus flow, if you will, and let people know what's really going on in this country, what's threatening our civil rights as well as our positions abroad. Again, just thanks for this opportunity. You're following well in the footsteps of Dr. King. That's quite a compliment, and I'm deeply grateful for it. Thank you, Ray. We'll see you again at the end of the week with Larry Johnson for the Intelligence Community Roundtable. All the best. Okay. Thanks. And the aforestated Larry Johnson will be here at 11 o'clock this morning and then after the inaugural oath of Donald Trump and his inaugural address at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.