Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Was Navalny an MI6 Agent?

Episode Date: February 19, 2024

Ray McGovern: Was Navalny an MI6 Agent?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, February 19th, 2024. Ray McGovern joins us today. Ray, a pleasure, my dear friend. I have a lot I want to talk to you about, about Alexei Navalny, about Julian Assange, about the Israelis preparing to invade Lebanon. I want to make a historical note before we start. February 19th, 1942, 82 years ago today, was the day FDR signed the infamous Executive Order 9066, which brought about the internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps in Utah. The order itself ordered the construction of the camps. FDR saved

the actual orders of confinement to military leaders who were advised in secret to do it. That gave them some plausible deniability. One of the darkest points in American history, and they were concentration camps. He himself referred to them that way. I just couldn't help noticing it. It so sickens me. Well, Judge, at least I think we apologized for that. We did. Yeah. We did. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, one of the last laws that Reagan signed into existence shortly before he left office, apologized, gave $20,000 tax-free to those who had been incarcerated and their survivors,

and promised that it would never happen again. It led to a horrible, horrible Supreme Court opinion. There's actually two opinions. The better known of the two is called Korematsu, which upheld the confinement. Okay, let's start with Navalny. To your understanding, was Navalny a British or American intelligence asset? Well, we have proof of a kind with a hidden camera watching him deal,

actually not Navalny himself, but his top aide deal with a known MI6 agent. And they're talking about, well, how many million would it take to do this or that? It's very clear. Now, there was a misunderstanding initially. So, well, that was Navalny. And say, no, no, that wasn't Navalny. It was only his chief of staff or his primary advisor, actually. So, we have that on record. There's lots of other evidence Navalny was up to no good, not only against Russian law, but against international law. And my friend Gil Doctorow, who is not given to conspiracy theories,

thinks that the British may have had a hand in what happened to Navalny, partly because they had the capability with all these friendly Ukrainian service people in tight liaison with the British, partly because the British, partly because the British have taken several shots at that bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper, partly because the Russians, at least, have accused the British of having a hand in downing that IL-76 with 65 prisoners of war, Ukrainian. Are you saying the British may have had a hand in Navalny's death? Yes, I am. What would they gain by Navalny's death? Well, look at the timing, Judge. It's the day before the big Munich conference. It distracts all kinds of attention from the Tucker Carlson interview. Curiously, and this is not probative, but Navalny's wife had already been invited to attend

the Munich security conference, and of course she was given the floor to speak. Boris Johnson, for God's sake, put the kibosh on that agreement way back in March of 2022. The British have been way out in front and doing things that it's questionable as to whether even the United States Secret Service, the CIA, or other organs are fully cognizant of what the British are doing. So it's not a stretch. Now, how could they get there? Easy. Ukrainians in tight liaison with MI6 are all over Russia. They speak fluent Russian. They're Russian stock. It would be a piece of cake to get the kind of poison, if it was poison, into the hands of a willing, cooperated fellow prisoner for lots of money. So it's not to be ruled out. And as I say, if the British can be responsible in part for downing that IL-76 with 65 POWs,

they can sorely be responsible for this, all the more so since the timing is so beautiful for various decisions that are coming down now on Ukraine. Our friend and colleague Karen Kwiatkowski has a piece out this morning comparing the Western reactions of two different deaths in prison. One, Alexei Navalny, a Russian citizen in a Russian prison. The other, Gonzalo Lira, an American citizen in a Ukraine prison. Of course, Navalny has been hailed as a saint and a freedom fighter. And Lira has basically been treated as if, well, he got what he deserved, what do you expect? Lera, of course, was in jail for arguing in Ukraine that the Russian invasion was morally

justified. Speaking of somebody, go ahead, go ahead, Ray. He interviewed Larry Johnson and myself and several other people, Scott, I mean, many of the people that appear on your program here. He was legit. I always marveled at how he could be hiding out there in Harthoff or wherever he was and still able to do this. Well, I don't know how, but he did do it until they caught up with him. Now, he was an American citizen, for God's sake. And as I've said before, that used to mean something. It doesn't mean something anymore.

He was also a Chilean citizen. Their diplomatic folks tried to help Gonzalo in vain. U.S., as far as I know, U.S. Consular Services were not made available to Gonzalo Lira. A really fateful tragedy. And you don't have to talk about just Gonzalo. You talk about Julian Assange right now, who I have prominently displayed on my makeshift bookcase because his verdict is coming down tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. It's a crucial verdict. We expect, or the day after tomorrow. It's a crucial verdict we expect, or many of us expect, I expect the British court to act as a vassal of the United States, which

would probably clear the way for extradition. And we know what will happen to Julian if he's extradited to the United States. This is another tragedy. You and John Mearsheimer and I and many other folks made public statements which were assembled by his defense lawyers and distributed widely throughout the world. Your argument was compelling. Professor Mearsheimer's argument, wow, was picked up by Elon Musk and had over 10 million views. Mine was insignificant compared to the two of yours,

though I addressed mine directly to the judges as a former colleague of theirs, though, of course, I don't know these people personally. There was a time when Great Britain had an independent judiciary, but no longer. And even though it would be remarkable if the extradition is denied, which would result in his immediate release, it would be startling and quite unexpected, unfortunately. But you have unearthed some emails from a former high-ranking official in the State Department articulating the horrible things that the deep state will do to him, some of which is kind of repellent,

even a mention, once he is in the custody of United States officials. Maybe you can just summarize it without getting too graphic and tell us if you believe that this is likely and why you believe it's likely. And who is this person whose emails were unearthed? Well, this person, his name is Fred Bertrand. And the way we know about this is through WikiLeaks. The same WikiLeaks. Yeah. They intercepted or they got hold of, I don't know how, a whole bunch of Stratfor documents. And at the time, this Bertrand joined Stratfor in 2004 after he had been deputy chief of diplomatic security for the State Department, for God's sake, okay? So here he is with this kind of pedigree, speaking up in these intercepted emails that WikiLeaks posted. Now, when WikiLeaks made their press conference or their press release about this, they quoted some of what Burton said. the big news was that there was a secret indictment against Julian Assange,

that there was a secret grand jury convened and he was indicted secretly. Now, a lot of people pooh-poohed that, saying, well, there's no evidence of that, but that was a year before people realized that was for real, okay? But the thing that I included in my statement for Assange defense had to do with the niceties of what appeared in Burton's own emails. And I listed them. There are a couple of things. I'll avoid the worst ones, but I copied them down. These are verbatim from Fred Burton, former Deputy Chief of Diplomatic Security for the State Department. This is, I guess those of us have been, when I had my open heart stuff, they had a treatment plan for me, right? Well, this is Assange's treatment plan when he gets back to the United States, if God forbid he does.

Okay, here's Fred Burton. Bankrupt the arsehole. Ruin his life. Big brother owns this terrorist's arse. I look forward to Manning and Assange facing a bajillion thousand counts of espionage. It doesn't get any better. I'll just read three more. Screw terrorist Assange.

He'll be eating cat food forever in prison. Declassify the death of a source. Blame it on Assange. Translation, somebody dies, you blame it on an exposure from WikiLeaks, you get Assange that way. Blame it on him. Last but not least, Assange needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl in Guantanamo, end quote. Now, this is Fred Bertrand, okay, working for Stratfor now. Is this the way people in the State Department communicate in emails when they think their

emails are not going to be made public? Well, again, he was in Stratfor at the time. He had graduated with honors. They call him the Dean of Protective Security. That's what it's called. The father of protective security. He wrote a couple of books, so he's a big deal, okay? No, this is the way they talk at Stratfor. Nobody expected that somebody would give Stratfor emails to- Well, what is Stratfor? Are you talking about the British facility?

No, no. Yeah. Well, no, it's a think tank headed by a fellow that had a degree of credibility at the time. Many people say it works for the CIA. It probably does. It's a contract service. It'll say what the CIA wants it to say,

including some substantive intelligence. The Manning to whom he refers in the one email, the name changed because of a sex change. So the name is now Chelsea Manning. I forget what the name was when this happened. Bradley. Bradley Manning pleaded guilty to espionage, excuse me, convicted of espionage, sentenced to 45 years in prison.

President Obama commuted his sentence while in prison, underwent the sex change operation at the expense of the federal government, another issue for another time. But Obama certainly did the right thing. This is the modern Daniel Ellsberg. Manning was the person who got this information, which showed the war crimes committed during the Bush administration, George W., to WikiLeaks, and Julian exposed them. Julian is absolutely protected by the Pentagon Papers case. Manning is not, as Ellsberg was not. In Ellsberg's case, because the FBI broke into his psychiatrist's office and stole his medical records, the trial judge was so outraged he threw the indictment out, the government didn't appeal. In Manning's case, the president commuted his sentence. There is no appeal.

Commuted his sentence after five years, Judge. Correct, correct. And then they put him in another prison in Alexandria for her in another prison to get him to squeal on Julian Assange, and she wouldn't do it. Right. So this is how bad it is. That's what I was going to say, that, yeah, you could say that Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning broke the law. Of course,

he or she did. But Julian Assange didn't. He's a publisher, for God's sake. And, you know, everybody on the right side of the law recognizes that. And the real sorrowful thing is that the media itself will not speak out in defense of Julian Assange, a fellow publisher. Correct, correct. One of the most courageous, selfless, influential journalists of our era. It would be a miracle if the courts in Great Britain and that either the oral argument is tomorrow or the opinion is to be released tomorrow. I'm not certain of the British system, but it would be a miracle if they block the extradition. One judge of the dozen or so who reviewed this case said he shouldn't be indicted because his mental status is so deteriorated he couldn't participate in his own trial. All right, but that's not even the basis

for blocking the extradition. The basis for blocking the extradition is he can't get a fair trial in America, and the sentence would effectively be a death sentence, and the Constitution protects what he did. All the other judges went along with what the British government wanted. I was secretly hoping that maybe an election in Great Britain would change the attitude of the prime minister. I don't think so. I think this is just, they're a vassal state of the United States, almost like Ukraine is, and we'll do what the United States wants. I've said this before, I'll say it again. I thought I had talked President Trump into pardoning him, and the president told me that I had, and then the people around him who were on the phone call

listening when the president and I were speaking, He called me. I didn't call him. As soon as we got off the call, changed his mind, and obviously he wasn't pardoned. Switching to Munich, the full court press that the EU and the U.S. is attempting to put on the House of Representatives from Munich, that Munich conference is over. It was all last week. Zelensky was there. They told tearjerker stories about Ukrainian troops running out of ammunition and going onto their mobile devices to look and see, have the Republicans in the House voted yet? Have the Republicans in the House changed their minds? I mean, this is absurd, Ray. Even if the Republicans in the House did endorse this

$61 billion giveaway that the Senate did, how long would it take for equipment to get there? And do these people even know how to use the equipment that we would send? Well, as Larry Johnson pointed out on Friday at our roundtable, it would take forever. It would not affect the outcome of what's happened. Now, it's doubly ironic given the fact that Adyavka is the stronghold from which the Ukrainians have been shelling the city, the citizens of Donetsk city since 2014 has been taken. That was the stronghold. There's not much between the Dnieper River and where the Russian forces are, and they are advancing on all those fronts. So here it is, a battle that's lost. These people in Munich are delusional. They still think there's some way they can pull this rabbit out of a hat.

And all the time, all this while, more and more Ukrainians are being killed. So it's really nice that they can sit back in their paneled offices and comfortable chairs and say, you know, we'll fight this to the last Ukrainian, which is pretty much what they're saying. We'll have a boon for the military industrial complex here because we'll get rich. The 1% will get rich. There'll be jobs for you peons, okay? I mean, it's so transparently cynical. I guess I've seen a lot of stuff, but I've never seen the like of this. Isn't this, correct my pronunciation on it, the city, Avadiika? Avadiika.

Well, it depends if it's Ukrainian or Russian. Avadiika, you're right. Avadiika. Isn't this a monumental defeat for the new commander of the Ukraine military? Well, it is. It's his first experience. He took command one week and all of a sudden they lost their major stronghold. Sierski is his name. He was put in place because Victoria Nuland came to Kiev and said,

look, you got to dismiss Zoloshny because he says that this is a stalemate. Pick Sersky, who did such a great job in Bakhmut, sacrificing a couple of hundred thousand Ukrainian soldiers. Let him see if he can turn the tide in Adyayevka. Well, you saw what happened. He actually sent crackerjack or cracker troops from the Azov Brigade, the neo-Nazis, down to telepathic troops in Kiev, who had been there almost two years. And what happened? Well, you can't do that kind of thing without the Russians seeing you from the air and have, since they have air dominance, obliterating those reinforcements you send, and that's precisely what happened. So the thing is lost. Obama can say, well, you know, we need $60 billion more, but, you know, if you look at Mike Johnson, he's saying, look, you know, not only are you not

taking care of our border, but this is money, this is throwing good money after bad, as Larry Wilkerson and I said in an op-ed last Friday. Here's President Biden last week, number six, Chris, complaining, I can't get this money out of Congress, and now they went on vacation for two weeks. Anything you can do to get ammunition to the Ukrainians

without a supplemental from Congress? No, but it's about time they step up, don't you think? Instead of going on a two-week vacation. Two weeks. They're walking away. Two weeks. What are they thinking? My God.

This is bizarre. And it's just reinforcing all the concern and almost, I won't say panic, but real concern about the United States being a reliable ally. This is outrageous. When Prime Minister Netanyahu needed military equipment and, quote, there wasn't time to go to Congress. You know where I'm going with this. Secretary of State Blinken, in my opinion, committed perjury by signing a document under oath swearing to its truthfulness. The essence of the document was this money is needed in an emergency capacity for American national security.

It wasn't $61 billion, it was $100 million, and he did it twice, and they sent $100 million worth of ammunition and spare parts and equipment to the Israelis. I wonder why they won't do the same for Ukraine. Well, let me draw a contrast here. There was a time when there were certain congresspeople who took their job seriously. Dave Obie from Wisconsin was one. He was head of appropriations in the House. Now, when Iran-Contra came down and it was shown that the U.S. had circumvented the law and given money to the Contras outside, you know, in a deal with Iran and Israel, all that stuff. George Shultz was summoned to the House of Representatives, and Dave Obie started questioning him. And Shultz was a good guy.

Don't misunderstand. He said the wrong thing. He said, Mr. Obie, America is sick of Iran-Contra. And Dave Obie responded, Mr. Schultz, I didn't take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States until I was sick, until I was tired. So we're going to go on with these proceedings. Why did you circumvent the law to provide weaponry against the law to the countries in Nicaragua? It was beautiful, but that doesn't exist anymore. Instead, you have the head of the House Intelligence Committee inventing nuclear explosions in space, you know, the day before Navalny is killed. I mean, if you need diversions, if you need rhetoric to divert your attention from the fact that Ukraine

has lost, that we are feeding genocide in Palestine, I mean, what will we have today, I wonder? Maybe Putin will do something really, really bad like tell the truth again. Wow. I'm not sure if it was from what you said or what somebody else said about Assange, but he's got a great line. If wars can be started by lies, they can be ended by truth. Truth is so, so sparse these days, Ray. You and Larry and McGregor and Ritter and Wilkerson and the others and I get excoriated for what we say on this program.

It is the truth, but the government doesn't want it heard. You know, Judge, that's the title underneath this portrait of Assange when I first met him. If wars can be started by lies, they can be ended by the truth. And that's what's at stake here. Not only that, but of course course if they get Julian Assange and put him away forever that will be a signal to all people all investigative reporters would be if you live in Greenland or Australia

or Santiago, Chile we're going to get you because we're the CIA we have a very long arm we don't care much about constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment. We're going to get you. So go ahead and try that. We're going to get you and put you away for the rest of your life. We'll end on that note, my dear friend, which is a lot to think about. And look forward to seeing you with Larry at the end of the week.

Thanks, Judge. Thank you, Ray. Thanks for all you do. Thanks, Judge. Thank you, Ray. Thanks for all you do. God love you. Talk to you soon. Hi. Oh, boy. I'm a little shaken by what he said, but I shouldn't be because I've been around the block and I know these things happen.

Larry Johnson at 11 this morning, Eastern. Kyle Anzalone. You won't believe some of the stuff Kyle's going to tell us about the IDF admitting it can't crush Hamas. Have you heard that anywhere else? Well, you'll hear it at three o'clock this afternoon. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.