Judging Freedom - Ukraine - What Offensive can we Expect_ - Tony Shaffer

Episode Date: April 11, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 11, 2023. It's about five minutes after two in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Tony Schaefer returns to our cameras and microphones today. Tony, a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Judge, always great to be here. Thank you for having me. Thank you. Since last we were together, there have been two tranches of documents leaked by some source we don't know, which seem to show American intelligence data summarized, analyzing the relative strengths of the Ukraine military versus the Russian military. And it's pretty damning for the Ukraine military. So let me start out with the basics. Have you seen this? Do you have an opinion on it?

Does it appear to be authentic? How can something like this get out to the public? So, yeah, to begin with, it does look authentic. I think John Kirby has sufficiently confirmed that, that it is authentic by the fact he says, don't look at it. Oh, no, not for public consumption. And along that line, Judge, it's interesting that all fingers point to the Pentagon instantly. It's like, oh, it's the Pentagon. Really? This could have been CIA, but apparently it's Pentagon. So that tells me a great deal. First, they kind of know the source. They do. No, think about it, Judge. From day one, this is Pentagon related. So when you say that, are you being sarcastic? Is the CIA trying to

brush off suspicion toward itself or is it truly the Pentagon? No, I think it's a Pentagon. And here's why I think there's something more afoot, because speaking as someone who's been involved in operations that require the level of protection we're talking about, which I'll get in a second right uh Pentagon has more than adequate investigative uh law enforcement resources judged to investigate a leak like this that is to say you've got CID in the army countered you know the the folks who do criminal investigations NCIS famously NCIS where they do task forces all the time so but, we're not going to have DOD investigate. We got the FBI rolling. Really? Why the FBI? Well, it's a good question. Why?

Why would you allow the FBI to get inside a DOD unless you're doing something different? Because DOD's job is to account for these sorts of things. They can put people in jail and they do. Leavenworth is a very fine prison by all accounts, Judge, just saying. They put people there all the time. So why now? Why are we deviating off to do this with the FBI? Because again, DOD, Army counterintelligence, Army internal investigation, every service can do this. So why are they deviating? Nobody's asking that question. And another factor, which to me is like not being addressed, is how does documents of this level get out? Before how it gets out, why the DOJ? Does the Department of Defense not trust its own

internal investigations to point a finger, or might the finger have to be pointed too high up? Well, that latter, I think, may well be the issue, because that comes to the next point I was going to make. Judge, these things are kept in a very small circle. That level of operational detail, as we now recognize, can cause all sorts of problems. The fact is, the Russians probably now know that there's going to be some opportunities on the horizon. They didn't know before. And the fact that we penetrated the Russians, that's something that I can tell you that was highly, highly classified. If we did it, let me phrase it,

if we penetrated the Russians, it was highly classified during the time that I was on the inside, if we did it, if it was done. And that brings me to the next point. When you walk in, you bring in a piece of paper and you say, sir, general, admiral, Mr. Secretary, here's the information, read it. They read it. They sign off on it and you walk out with it. You don't physically leave it behind. You never leave, Judge, physical artifacts for them to be leaked to the media. Again, that's why the operations I ran have never been compromised. How do you send a memo to your bosses summarizing the raw data that they've asked? You don't. You don't you you walk in you say general admiral secretary undersecretary here's the information here's what we've got you can you

can these documents appeared to be a summary so much so it's almost as if they were uh what do you call it powerpoint right right would there have been some secure federal facility in which agents would be watching a PowerPoint? Yes. So there is something called the Special Technical Operations System, the STO system. There are secure facilities within secure facilities. It's like a like one of the nesting dolls. It's like a nesting doll for security. Judge, you get smaller and smaller. Right, right. I have one of those dolls that somebody gave me as a gag. It took me like about, it's the shape of an egg. Yeah, right, right. You go through about five or six smaller eggs until you find out what was in the middle. Yes. And the middle was a bust of Vladimir Putin. Well, there you go. Anyway, okay. But you get my point. The analogy is valid. So

you do have these facilities and you do have those kinds of briefings. But again, it's a very limited audience, very limited. I mean, we're talking maybe a half a dozen. So that's what goes back to your other point about why is DOJ coming in? Well, maybe because the person is so high up that they think did this. It has to be at that level because I'm telling you right now, these things are not easy to get. You can see on those documents, some of them say REL, that's releasable to certain countries. And of course, the fingers are going to be looking at those folks as well as a potential venue. But everything indicates right now that they do kind of have a trail of where they're looking they have kind of verified that these are u.s or documents originating from the pentagon because again everybody's been talking about the pentagon and doj coming in to investigate the pentagon so

and then of course john kirby being john kirby uh i i find an interesting judge that he spends more time in georgetown buying 300 ties than he does paying attention to factual details relating to his job, because what he's been saying is factually inaccurate relating to a number of things. This whole issue regarding documents is one of them. The media has any obligation and all obligation to report what they find, but it's inconvenient to the administration. We're going to run a clip of Admiraliral kirby sure tell us if there's an inaccuracy in this i don't think so but you may you obviously know more about this than i do sure and then tell us what else he's done or said that you believe is inaccurate gary 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. True. Anytime John Kirby says this is the truth and honest answer, run the other way, Judge, always. So they know within probably 15 people where this could have come from. So this information is not widely proliferated.

It's just not. These things are tightly, tightly controlled. They're hand-walked around. And if they're presented, they're presented in secure facilities, which nobody can take copies out of. So, again, just from the physical artifacts I've seen, someone had a copy of the slides. If you have a copy of those slides, that reduces the audience of availability down to 15 people, more or less. Trust me, I've run around and done this sort of thing. I have had to move highly classified information around Washington securely without

getting caught by the good guys or bad guys. And it is highly limited. So he's lying. They know within 10 or 15 people where it came from. What they're trying to do right now is figure out how to do it. I wouldn't put it past him if they're behind him. Remember, during the Bush administration, a guy named Larry Franklin, you might remember Colonel Franklin, Larry Franklin, was accused of leaking sensitive information regarding

the Iraq invasion to AIPAC, the Israeli organization. He did that as part of Doug Feith's organization, the work directly for Don Rumsfeld. And he got caught giving information to the Israelis via AIPAC. So he ended up going to jail for that. So I wouldn't put it past someone in this administration basically encouraging someone to take this stuff out and get it out there because one of the other points we're about to talk about, I know, is the change in narrative.

The very thing that we've been talking about, how long, Judge, have we been talking about this, about how they've been lying about numbers? And here it is, something that is credibly leaked is going to now change the narrative to what we've been saying for a long time. Well, I don't think that's happening at random. All right. When Admiral Kirby said, we don't know if this is all the person has, is that a lie? Is he preparing us for more to come out?

He's clearly preparing us for more. He's clearly preparing us for more. He's clearly preparing us for more. I think there's more out there, probably at least one more tranche. All right. Do you credit the accuracy or the truthfulness of these documents? For example, the claim that the kill ratio of seven to one, seven Ukrainians soldiers killed for every one Russian. I mean, if that's true, as one of my viewers said, it's a turkey shoot. It's a slaughter. Could that be true? I think it's closer to 10 to 1, to be honest with you, Judge. I think the numbers are,

even these numbers are soft. And I think these numbers are as soft as they can get them and present them to leadership and be credible. Just saying. So who do you think, you don't know the name, but what type of person would do this? Is this an Edward Snowden doing it for ideological reasons? Again, this could be one of three things. There's three sources that could come from. First, a foreign source,

because on some of those documents, it says releasable to certain countries. I thought the document said no foreign. It said no foreign but real. No foreign but real basically says no foreign dissemination but releasable to the Five Eyes. For example, some of those were Five Eyes documents. Okay. Judge, we allow-

And the Five Eyes are Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S. That's right. So I don't think it came from them. I don't. So that comes to the second potential suspect, which is senior DOD leadership. I think that's a good possibility that someone who is actually still in DOD leadership saw these things and said, I've got to get out. Civilian or military? Probably civilian. I don't think a military person would do it at this point. It's probably civilian. Or the third possibility is a dupe, like a Franklin, Larry Franklin, who was working for the Office of Special Projects under Rumsfeld.

The Office of Special Projects was run by a guy named Fyfe. Fyfe then gave Larry Franklin documents to give to the Israelis. So the third possibility is they're doing something like Bush 43 did, where they're telling someone, go take these and get them out there. And then they're going to say, oh, we didn't do that. So there's three possibilities. A purposeful link through a dupe, a legitimate person saying, I've had enough,'ve got to get the information out, or someone from the Five Eyes. Those are the three sources I'm going on the record saying we're going to come to find it came from. I'm going with the last one where I think that

the administration gave these to somebody to get out. Wow. What is your opinion of the truthfulness of Secretary Austin before and now that we know about this? Or is it the same? So, again, I know General Austin. I work with him in combat. I think Austin has become, first and foremost, a politician, secondly, someone who served in the military. And right now he's done what he's been told to do, which is to deflate some numbers, expand other numbers for the purposes of trying to create a political narrative. And remember, Judge, part of this has to be with his lying.

I don't think his lie was working so part of this could be the reason they're leaking these documents which i think it's very possible is to try to justify more spending think about it oh my goodness we've we've not but these documents show that the government itself recognizes that the chances of ukraine victory so slim. For example, one of the claims on the document is the government's view that by the end of May, that's six weeks from now, Ukraine's air defenses will be totally degraded down to zero. How could they possibly sustain an assault from Russia with no air defenses? But that's what they're going to say. It's like, see, it's so bad now.

Yeah, we didn't tell you the truth, but it's so bad we need more money. We need to really jump in there now and do what's necessary to defend Ukraine. That's what I want. I want to go back to former four star general, now secretary of defense, Austin. Yeah. You tell me how he could say what we're going to show you. It's about a minute and 10 second interrogation from a rather mild-mannered Mississippi Senator, Roger Wicker, Senate Armed Services Committee. You're familiar with this process. You tell me what you think of

General slash Defense Secretary Austin's answers. 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 being 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. Is he credible or not? No, listen to the first few things he said are very soft. Well, degraded. What does that mean? To what percentage? They've been, all these things he talks about are like, very like, okay, what do you mean?

Can you put a specific, the senator should have said, okay, give me a number. What's the percentage here? And they didn't do that. But then when he talks about, can they still achieve a significant victory? That is a lie. No, at this point, as we know now from these documents, should they be real? Every indication those documents are real, there's absolutely no way the current military force, the current capacity of the Ukrainian military can do anything more than sustain the basic defensive posture it's in now. That's it. So what he said was a lie. So if we're trying to figure out whether we have an Edward Snowden here as the leaker, someone who was ideologically, morally, intellectually, honestly opposed to American military involvement, believes it's doomed to failure, believes he has a duty under the Constitution to inform the

American public, versus a Lloyd Austin type who wants to please his masters and wants to make an argument for more and faster aid to the Ukrainians, you would opt for the latter, the Austin type as opposed to the Snowden type. I would because of the nature of the investigation. Remember who's investigating? The FBI will basically report whatever it's told. Think about that. That's maybe why they don't want DOD investigators coming in, because they may want to control the narrative. The FBI, as you know, Judge, is not an honest investigative organization at this point. I know, but Lloyd Austin would have more, correct me if I'm wrong, Tony, Lloyd Austin would

have more control over DOD investigators than he would over FBI investigators. No? It's not about DOD. It's about the White House trying to control the narrative, Judge. That's what's going on. Who benefits? Who benefits? Who benefits from the FBI coming in? The White House. Who benefits from information being investigated, but no one being found guilty? The White House. This is a fascinating analysis, Tony, and very different from what we've been hearing from out the day, even from some of your friends and colleagues. Let me switch gears slightly. Is there anything in this report or report, is there anything in these documents that Russian intel did not know? So I suspect suspect about if you just watch the battle space and watch what's coming and going

you probably have about 80 there's a few nuggets in there that they probably didn't know some of the relationship issues between us and third countries are things we know about third countries dealing with them they i mean they know they the, the Russians know they're dealing with those countries. Now they know we know. So yeah, there's a few things like that, but I don't think anything changes the battle space and the parameters of what the Russians intended. You're not going to see any major tactical or strategic changes in the Russian war plan based on what's in these documents, as far as I can tell. All right. We have a recent quote from President Zelensky. He speaks in Ukrainian. There is a translation. It's a weird translation. It sounds like it might have been done by a computer, and it's relatively brief. Talks about what his real goal is here. We're going to play this clip, which is only about

12 or 15 seconds long. We're going to play it twice, back to back, so you can grasp all of it. I had to listen to it three times before I could grasp it. And then you tell us what you think. The world should know respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea, when there freedom there just like everywhere else in Ukraine the 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 now Now, for whose consumption is this? Surely the Ukrainian military knows the Ukrainian flag is never going to fly over Crimea.

This is for, as far as I can tell us and the American people, because, Judge, remember what I think is going on here. And I may be going against all the other... Quite all right, Tony, you are sharp. You are sharp and credible. I see this as a tripling down on trying to justify more support for Zelensky. So Zelensky says, oh, we must go to Crimea. And the Biden administration says, we lied to you. It's way worse.

It's way worse than we told you. And that's why we got to triple down. We need to examine how we can get more forces in there because we're now jeopardizing freedom. We're now, you know, jeopardizing democracy if we don't jump in. So I think that's what's going on is trying to prep the American people to ask for more. Well, we know one person who was no doubt quite pleased about normalcy will only return when the Ukrainian flag is flying over Crimea. And that's the number three ranking person in the State Department, Victoria Nuland.

She basically said in a more American way, the same thing. I mean, she actually called for military action. She didn't say troops on the ground you know what she meant american military action to liberate crimea i mean that's that's uh that's just not going to happen well think about judge she's at the level that some of these documents may have been leaked from just saying just saying if there were going to be a leak it would be coming from someone at that level top of all this we have emmanuel macron uh on his flight from Beijing to Paris saying Europe will no longer be a vassal state to own right and independent from the U.S. And if Macron speaks for others in Western Europe, it's don't even come to us if you think we're going to send troops and material to Taiwan.

We're just not doing it. So remember, Judge, at the beginning of the Biden White House, they said the adults are back in charge. And the adults in charge now have done everything they can, no matter how you feel, to upend the larger international order. And Biden just went to Ukraine to show unity with the allies. This shows disunity. And so, again, no matter what side of the argument you are, it's clear that there's not unity in NATO. There's not. And the role the United States plays to be the cohesive force is waning.

So, you know, I'm not judging if it's good or bad. I'm saying that's what's happened. And when you have Macron, a major ally regarding this issue, now trying to propose with the Chinese peace talks for Ukraine, that means the United States is not in control of its own destiny at this point. And I think it's, it's something that people have to consider what's going to happen next. And,

and the Biden folks are going to be essentially passengers in their own car of, of their own cloud clown car of freedom. So, so when Colin Powell was probably saying what he thought was true, but now, of course, we know it wasn't, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and George W. Bush was pushing the same argument,

and Phil Giraldi was the senior CIA informer to Bush and told him that there were no weapons of mass destruction. And Bush threw him out of the Oval Office. The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee was 100% in Bush's camp, as was the chief of staff to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The chief of staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee is today the Secretary of State of the United States. And the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee in that era is now the president. Right. So we have the same thing all over again.

So just to that point, I mean, you see these people come up together and they cover each other's behind constantly. Yes. On the weapon of mass destruction issue with larry wilkerson colonel wilkerson was colonel's chief of staff and flat out said that that he and colin powell were lied to flat out by cia and powell just chose to go lie anyway so we've got to recognize that these people all have an agenda it is not to be supporting the constitution it's one of the reasons we're trying to do Project Sentinel. You and I have talked about this on and off air.

I'm fed up with people ignoring their oath of office for personal benefit. And that's what I think these old people, they cover each other's behind for purposes of promotion and self-interest. Tony Schaefer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, sir. Good to be on.

More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.