Judging Freedom - Security Clearances, Leaks & Gov Lies - Tony Shaffer

Episode Date: April 17, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, April 17, 2023. It's about 3.30 in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. Tony Schaefer joins us again. Tony, since we last spoke about top secret security clearances and this young man, Jack Teixeira, some of your colleagues whom I know you respect and admire have come close to your argument that it seems like a lot for him to have had in his possession and had and revealed on his own. What do you think the chances are that he's a pawn for somebody far senior to him in the government who is either adverse to the Biden administration policy or is looking for some kind of an off ramp? Well, I think it's very significant and very likely at this point for a couple of different reasons.

First, this individual, Tassera, is very young. And let me clarify some of my comments last time because it seemed to generate some interest. Someone his age could probably end up with a security clearance, top secret. It's possible. Probably in this case, he did get one. Simply having a clearance doesn't grant you access to the actual information. It's kind of like having a driver's license. You don't have a car. You've got to get a car. You've got to go get a car. And that's where the analogy is directly related here. Someone gave him a car, Judge. I don't think he just got the car. before he can get material marked top secret, or can he sit at his laptop, whether it's in a skiff or in his bedroom in his parents' home, and just access this stuff?

The clearance is an administrative process. You go through, you fill out paperwork. It's done as an investigative and adjudicative process. Are you personally investigated by either the FBI or some investigative authority in the military that employs you? Yes. It's a separate process that results in a clearance being granted. The clearance being granted does not give you access. Access is different than granting them clearance. The clearance is an administrative process. And yes, you've probably had something called a NAC, National Agency Check done to get a secret clearance. Beyond that, you get to get

special compartmented information. TS, you've got to go through a special background investigation, SBI. That does require Defense Security Service or other, some other investigative entity review your background. It's an actual investigation. How long does all this take from the time you fill out the first form till the time you get your top secret SCI segmented, compartmented information that can only be looked at in a government secure skiff before you get that approval? You can get an interim top secret based on a

national agency check and local checks. That is to say they could just go check with local law enforcement as long as you don't have a criminal record and you've completed national agency checks. That means you can get an interim clearance of top secret. It doesn't mean you get the access. It means you just get the clearance. And then the actual clearance with the investigations probably take close to a year, plus another six months for adjudication, year and a half. And can this happen to someone who is, and I do not demean their work, but I want our viewers to know what I'm talking about. Basically a weekend warrior. This young man was not working, as I understand it, in the military 40, 50, 60, 70 hours a week

like you did. He was doing something else during the week and spending one weekend a month with the Massachusetts National Guard. Do I have that right? You do, but his billet could have been designated for that level of clearance because he was an intelligence unit. So some of these clearances are granted based on the position. That is to say that if you're in a certain position, when I was in the Ohio Army National Guard as a second lieutenant, I was a counterintelligence, a human intelligence officer. I was given a secret clearance. I didn't need any more than that. And apparently in his unit, he may be working at a higher level. With that said, Judge, because he gets a top secret clearance doesn't grant him top secret access.

Okay, so he has the driver's license. How does he get the car? So he gets the car by someone else giving him the keys to the car. Someone had to give him access. Once you've got the clearance, the access is a completely different issue. And that's where we don't know. This is where the story gets really vague to the point of nonexistence. Those slides he had were highly controlled. They came from a very high level. And some people said, well, maybe he printed them. Judge, anytime you take something off a top secret system, somebody said that the JWICs may have been the source.

That's the Joint Worldwide Top Secret Intelligence Net. It's like an internet with top secret. Anytime you do anything on that, it's recorded. And if you can't do a thumb drive, you can't take a document and open it without someone noting it. These are highly controlled documents, especially after the whole thing with Bradley Manning. Any top secret document or database is heavily

regulated. So how did they get around that? I don't think he did. Bridge to the next point. Who did he get those slides from? Let me stop you before you get that. Is there any question in your mind, Tony, that the materials are genuine and are what they appear to be? Based on the reaction alone of the White House, they're absolutely authentic. The way that John Kirby said, you know, by the way, Judge, you and I are going to be chewed out by John Kirby because we're talking about something we're not supposed to. I mean, well, you even looked at these documents and he told you to throw them out. That's right. That's right. Don't look at them because, you know, so yeah, no, I do believe they're authentic.

Plus, just looking at the slides themselves, the way it's formatted, the portion markings, the classification markings, they all look very authentic. Okay. All right. Now, back to your analogy. Sure. You have analogized the top secret security clearance to getting a driver's license but not getting the key to a car. Right. top secret security clearance to getting a driver's license, but not getting the key to a car. What a human being, not a computer program, but a human being had to have given him the key to the car. That's my judgment because the level of briefings, the slides are from the chairman of

the Joint Chiefs level. Some of those markings are very clearly designated for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for the Joint Staff. At least one set of CIA documents. Judge, to get CIA documents, CIA has to pass those to DOD. And apparently, these things were controlled. Now, again, back during my day, documents like that were highly, highly maintained as separate from the internet. You don't put it on. I've shared some other reviews. I actually had to go in with my friend, Jim Woolsey. Jim and I sat down with Mike Pompeo back when CI had its hacking tools compromised because they were storing them on the internet. So I was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go over and brief Mike on this is how you

protect things like that. Don't put it on the Internet. And so that's what I'm saying. Don't don't you never put this level of highly classified information on a network system. You just don't do it because these sorts of things can happen. And I don't believe that they compromise the the automated. I don't think this is that I don't think these slides were put on an automated system. Therefore, if it wasn't put on an automated system, the kid had to get him from somewhere. Someone had to either give it to him, had to hand it to him, or he had to find it from a source which was friendly to give it to him. That's why I'm saying- Why would anybody give a briefing intended for the five senior military leaders in the United States government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

to this 21-year-old weekend warrior in Cape Cod? Well, they'd have to have a motive. And that's where your background and my background would have to be used to kind of sort through it with more details. At this point, Judge, again, that's the boy. The kid had a clearance, okay. The documents exist, okay. How did this evil Reese's Cup moment come together? How did the chocolate and peanut butter get together? That's what we don't know at this point. So the documents revealed that the American government itself, notwithstanding an investment of $60 billion in the Ukraine government, another $48 billion authorized, believes that Ukraine is losing, believes that Ukraine's air defenses will be degraded down to zero by the end of next month.

And yet American officials are painting an entirely different picture. To me, this rises to the level of false official statement and lying under oath. So, yes, from everything I've seen, I've watched a number of these things. Okay. So I want you to watch, and you and I have seen this before. Sure. But it's only about two weeks old. It is well after these materials were first posted on his gamer site, so well after he got it.

Right. This is the Secretary of Defense, who must know what the Joint Chiefs know. But you tell me, I'm going to ask you right after we watch this, is he being truthful? Here he is. 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-54s 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 continued to witness them be challenged with artillery munitions and other things. And they're reaching out to Iran. They're reaching out 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. Ukraine has the upper hand. Russian capability is waning. We expect significant Ukraine advances.

Is he lying under oath? The answer is yes, based on at the moment he said what he said, he knew it was false. And in the military, it's called false official statement. Basically, he knew under oath. Is there actually a phrase for this? False official statement. Yeah, look, I've been charged with that before, Judge. I mean, in all my investigations, that's one of the bogus allegations against me when I was going through my clearance revocation. False official statement is like, what's false? So, no, they can charge you with that. As a matter of fact, that's grounds for revocation of a clearance.

That's grounds for being brought up on charges. That is chargeable under the UCMJ or under federal law because he made a false official statement. That was a false statement. He knew that the statement was false. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the indictment. No, but let me add one other point to this too. When he made those statements, it was meant to deceive. That is his only fault.

He was trying to say that he patently knew was completely inaccurate and that to me then comes to lying uh under oath to congress there there's a i don't know what charge that would be but when you knowingly deceive congress as part of a hearing that is uh i i think it's it's a felony it's a felony tony there are there are two charges there's perjury and then there's knowingly misleading Congress. What's the reason for the second statute? Because sometimes Congress forgets to administer the oath. Right. And so it's not perjury, but you're still misleading Congress. The penalty is the same. It's five years per lie or five years per misleading statement. But again,

I'm not going to hold my breath. They're going to prosecute this 21-year-old. They're not going to prosecute a Secretary of Defense who misled the Congress and misled the press and misled the public. Someone should take those slides, print them off, and then confront Secretary Austin directly and cite what we just talked about. On this date, Mr. Secretary, you made these statements. On this date, these slides existed. How is it that you said this and yet these slides reflect this? I wish that I could be the interrogator. Any one of the senators can do it. That's the last time he appeared before that committee. That's just a few weeks ago. We'll see what happens the next time he's there. How about this from Victoria

Newland revealing the location of Russian assets? Take a listen to this. There is a drone base in Crimea where the drones that the Iranians have given Russia are being launched from. There are command and control sites in Crimea that are essential for Russia's hold on all of the territory, including the land bridge. There are mass military installations on Crimea that Russia has turned into essential logistics and back office depots for this war. Those are legitimate targets. Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that. Let's put aside the craziness that she believes

that a Ukrainian flag is going to fly over Crimea. What is she revealing? What intel has told her, right? Right. Oh, no doubt that national systems were used, ISR, intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance systems were used to generate the information she just revealed. It's very significant. I mean, she gave a very specific location that probably gave the Russians a heads up, like, hey, they know where our stuff is.

But more importantly, Judge, the point that we're missing here, that the mainstream media is missing, not us, is that she is clearly stating that we are a combatant in this war. Yes. Listen to what she said. She just laid out that we are engaging these as targets. These are legitimate targets. Really? Judge, I don't remember a declaration of war being voted on and implemented regarding how we now are engaging the Russians directly. But that's what she said there.

You know, it's a head scratcher. We know there's been no declaration of war. We know there are members of Congress who are very determined on this. Rand Paul on the Republican side, Tim Kaine on the Democrat side. Rand Paul is a friend of mine, Tim Kaine's an acquaintance. Where the heck are they? Why aren't they saying, why are American boys pulling triggers of American hardware, shooting American ammunition at Russian boys without authorization from the

Congress. That's what they should be saying on the floor of the Senate. Well, and how's to look, our late friend, Walter Jones is a close friend and mentor of mine. Walter always said, we must have a debate, even no matter what side you're on, the American people need to be informed and consent and have obtained their consent for any use of military force. And here we have an unelected bureaucrat who is essentially enlisting the United States in the Ukrainian war against Russia without any regard to the policy or other realistic consequences regarding the United States and our involvement. So the Walter Jones argument, and God rest his soul, I hope he's in heaven. He was a great man and a mentor to me as well, is the reason why I have argued,

and I've been raked over the coals a little bit over the weekend, even by some of my fans and friends and family members, that Teixeira is an American hero. He may be a pawn. Maybe somebody put this in his laptop. I don't know. I'm ambivalent. I'm ambivalent. Okay. But my point is the American public has the right to know what the government is doing. And when the government is lying about killing people, the revelation of that ought not to be criminal. It ought to be lauded. You and I both, I was a whistleblower. I went through the grinder. I will never regret my decision. It was the right thing to do. I don't know what to share his motivation is at this point.

I don't know enough to understand why he did what he did. And I'm going to hold my opinion on that. With that said, I agree with you 100 percent that the information that is put out, first off, contradicted the official line, which showed people lied under oath. And secondly, was information that the American people had the right to know and do need. And now that it's out, we must demand an accountability of why these leaders like Victoria Nuland and Lloyd Austin are trying to sign us up to war without authorization because it's not in our interest. As a soldier, Judge, if we're going to go fight, I want to fight to win. We're not fighting to win. We're fighting to be disruptive and essentially meddle in the politics of a country that is not a member of NATO. That is not in any interest that I can tell regarding our national strategy

or need to influence things within Europe. All right, so what happens now? Will the FBI perform some kind of a forensic test on any computer he touched? And will that forensic test show who gave him the keys to the car? No, they will not, because DOD will probably not give them that access. Remember, that's the other red flag we've been talking about. It's completely insane that DOJ and FBI come in to investigate this. I know in DOD, you have a third agency looking over your shoulder at your systems.

That's not going to fly. So I think FBI is going to be met rightly with a lot of resistance from DOD regarding what system he accessed and when. This should have all been handled by DOD. Judge, I started off as an army counterintelligence special agent. I know we have adequate numbers of those folks. They still exist. You could have put together a blue ribbon DOD investigative unit to go do this. Matter of fact, I think DOD should do that because you don't want the FBI, especially with its lack of integrity in recent investigations, doing anything in any critical system within DOD. It's just not in DOD's interest to do that. So in which case is it more likely that whoever the chess master is to Tashara as pawn will be discovered with a DOD investigation or with an FBI investigation?

I think the FBI is brought in to make sure that nobody in the official governance appointed positions are ever basically charged or endangered. I think they are there to be the firewall between any inconvenient facts and the Biden administration. That's what their job is there to do. Well, the FBI is for the birds if that's what they're doing in this case. I think that's what they're going to do. This kid is going to spend 20 years in a federal prison. All he was was a pawn from somebody senior. We won't know who the senior person is until that person is gone. Probably. I think that's what the plan is. I mean, it's what it's looking like to me. I've seen this movie before, Judge. It's what the plan is. I mean, it's what it's looking like to me. I've seen this movie before judge.

It's what it looks like to me. And it's, it's, it's better on reruns than it is in life. Just saying. You got it. Tony Schaefer. Always a pleasure,

my dear friend. Thank you for all your insight. Thank you, judge. Wow. If you like that, like, and subscribe.

And as you know, more when we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. If you like that, like and subscribe. And as you know, more when we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.