Judging Freedom - U.S. Justice System Clown Show w_ Larry Johnson

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, April 21st, 2023. It's about 2.30 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Larry Johnson returns to the show. Larry, of course, it's always a pleasure. You have written a piece, which I read before the sun came up this morning, comparing the allegations against Jack Teixeira for the documents that the government says he revealed in the past couple of months, documents hugely embarrassing to the government, and the manner in which we expect he will be treated by the government, to the manner in which the government has treated others, particularly Sandy Berger. Now, Sandy Berger, at the time he did what he did, and I'll let you explain this,

was the national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. What did he do that affected the revelation, removal, or destruction of top secret documents? He went into the national Archives with the presidential documents. And I don't recall what the specific document was that he pulled out, but he stuffed it basically into his underwear or to his clothing and walked out with it. And then he cut it up in the little pieces, destroyed it. So he was trying to erase something embarrassing for the Clinton administration. Then when confronted over it, initially he lied and then finally confessed. And lo and behold, all was forgiven.

He got a $10,000 fine, a misdemeanor plea, you know, and be a good boy. Don't do it again. Well, I then went on to Petraeus because David Petraeus, you know, four-star general, West Point grad, then head of the Central Intelligence Agency, he had a mistress problem and he was sharing classified information with his mistress. The whole affair got blown up by another woman in Tampa. And this led to this discovery that Petraeus had taken this classified information, actually had it stored at his house in an unsecure location. And again, when confronted with it, he lied to federal agents. Now, in both cases, the FBI didn't come in armored personnel carriers and automatic weapons to arrest them like they did Texero. Oh, no, no, no, no. These guys got the friend and family treatment. And let's add to the list Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton had top secret information on unclassified computers. There is no way in the world that you can accidentally place top secret material on an unclassified

computer. Explain that to us, Larry. So the top secret material is on one kind of computer. And if you put in a thumb drive or try to put it on a CD-ROM, it's going to set off alarms. There's no way that you could like hit a copy of an email and send it to another computer. No, you have to physically make a copy of it by either printing it or putting it on a thumb drive, which is illegal. What does the government say Teixeira did? He printed it? Yeah. Then he folded it up and then he went home and then he took a copy of it and then he sent it to his buddies? Right. So let's accept that the explanation is out there. All he was doing was just showing off for his buddies. Now, I personally don't believe that. I believe he was being used.

But let's just go with that as the story. You know, he's showing off for his buddies. Well, what Sandy Berger was doing was hiding information that should have been in the Clinton papers because it was embarrassing to the Clintons. What David Petraeus was doing was using classified information to burnish his own image for publishing a book to help him out. And what was Hillary Clinton using the classified information for? Shaking down other countries so that they could enrich themselves in the Clinton Foundation. All personal motives for financial gain of some sort. And yet, all of them, all of them take a walk. Berger was fined $10,000. Petraeus was fined $100,000, which sounds like a hefty sum,

except he's now a partner with Colbert, Kravis, Roberts, KKR. You know, he's got a big Wall Street job. The guy's making, you know, millions of dollars now. Correct. He can afford the $100,000. So I said sort of tongue-in-cheek, maybe Teixeira had been a student of the careers of Sandy Berger and David Petraeus. Let's go back to Sandy Berger. When this happened, Clinton was not in the White House, George W. was. Is that correct? Correct. That's correct. And Sandy, who has since passed away, had a top secret security clearance from his days as the national security advisor.

And he used that top secret security clearance to get into the archives, into the presidential papers, into the top secret stuff, put it in his underwear and take it out. Right. And when the guilty plea was accepted, he surrendered his top secret security clearance for three years and then he got it back. Right. And the prosecutor who agreed to this was made a federal judge by george w bush but tell me this stuff wasn't all planned out so that it was a win-win-win for everybody involved win for bill clinton because the document is gone forever win for sandy berger because there was no permanent loss of uh of national security stat clearance and there was no uh no incarceration and win for George W., I guess,

you know, did a favor for Bill. Yeah, it's part of the corruption of our judicial system that has become just so apparent, the double standard. If it's little guys like Bradley Manning, aka Chelsea Manning, or now Jack Teixeira, boy, they get the book thrown at them. They get the SWAT team. They get handcuffed. They get abused in jail. But if it's Sandy Berger or David Petraeus, hey, you get a lucrative Wall Street job. You get Hillary Clinton.

Will we ever find out if you and Colonel McGregor and Tony Schaefer are correct in this, that there is somebody north, well, everybody's north of Tasharon the totem pole. I don't even know if he's a sergeant, but somebody significantly, no, I don't mean to demean him, somebody significantly north of him who wanted this stuff out there, who for ideological reasons that you and I share, wanted the American public to know that the government is inherently unworthy of belief. Will we ever know that? I think it's unlikely unless there's a whistleblower, because I think what's going to happen, they will also try to cut a deal to keep this kid quiet. Because if they have to go to court, then the kid's going to be able to raise some serious issues about how security was handled and expose some malpractice by senior commanders. So I think there may be a lot of pressure to cover it up. I hope that he has the right lawyer. As you know, you need a lawyer

who him or herself has a top secret security clearance, which there's a federal act that regulates all of this. There are lawyers like that in Boston. I mean, you can't just get a run-of-the-mill lawyer. He's got to get one that has experience doing this because the presence of that lawyer will terrify certain people in the government who will know that if they go to trial, this lawyer knows how to pry loose information from other people in the government that the government might not want pried loose. I mean, look at it this way. If what the government says is true, Deshera only exposed this to 20 people, none of whom exposed it to the public, one of whom

exposed it to this Russian-born Navy veteran. She uploaded it to the Discord website. So he does have an argument there that what he did was far less damaging than Sandy Berger, far less damaging than David Petraeus, and nowhere near, even from the government's perspective, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Reality Winner, those other folks who did it for ideological reasons. Well, actually, Judge, you raise a really interesting question on this upload business, because the role of Bellingcat, it started out as an individual named Elliot Higgins who took the moniker Bellingcat, but now it's an open source intelligence outfit that has direct ties to British intelligence and to the CIA. They were the ones who sort of discovered this.

Yet instead of keeping it quiet, instead of working with intelligence to shut it down and to not get it exposed, they made sure that this would get run up the flagpole and exposed widely. The U.S. Navy veteran, it goes under the name Dombastavushka, actually she didn't upload it. She's got, there are about 15 people associated with that site and i actually saw it when it first popped up on the web and it then was immediately taken down she took it down initially and then when it started popping up on twitter and other places then they put it back up but the attempt to try to pin it on her is just, I think, one more part of this psyop to direct attention away from the fact that the Brits were involved. You and I have had experience with the Brits being involved.

Are those documents still available? Is there a place where I could go and read them? The reason I ask is because it seems like there's a new revelation from the documents every day. The Polish prime minister said this, the Egyptian president said that. Is this some rolling opportunity to examine these things or are the Washington Post just taking their time going through it? I think the Washington Post has been given exclusive access to classified information because there's one site I've seen in China that has about 40 documents posted, but you keep hearing these numbers, 100, 200, 300. I have never seen any

site on the internet with that volume of documents and with that ease of access. So you can search high and low and you're not going to find it, which further to me is another sign that this is all part of a psychological operation or an intentional controlled leak. They're trying to get a specific message out. This is a leaking with a purpose. Here's Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland making an argument for the United States to assist in an invasion of Crimea. I want you to listen to her and tell me, Larry, if she is revealing top secret information at a public press conference. 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. Where did she get that information from? Yeah, that came out of classified briefings. I mean, that's not just lying around in press reports. That's clearly classified material. But again, she's one of the favored in Washington. As long as you've got the right friends, Judge, you can leak and get away with anything. How reckless is it to suggest that the United States, I can't even say this with a straight face, should aid in an invasion of Crimea? Another way to say that is we should start World War III. Invade Crimea would be like the Chinese in Mexico invading Arizona.

You're a student of history, and you look back in history on the eve of the invasion of France by the Allies to try to retake Europe from the Nazis. I don't recall anybody talking about, boy, our upcoming counteroffensive to go back into Normandy or Pas-de-Calais, you know, we're going to, and that we talked about it every week and that all the politicians were out talking about it. It was just the opposite. They were using Patton as a decoy to try to, in manufacturing record radio traffic, to distract the Germans and keeping the other thing quiet. So I don't know what these crazy people are doing because, yeah, they've exactly given the target list that we're going to hit. And the Russians certainly are not sitting back saying, oh, well, they don't mean it or we're not going to prepare. Just the opposite. They're going to beef up their defenses and they'll be ready for us.

Why does she need, Mrs. Newland, why does she need to state publicly that we know where these drones are, we know who manufactured them, we know how many they have, and we know where the Russian troops are moving? Is this to bolster her own credibility amongst the Washington intelligentsia? I mean, is Tony Blinken going to say, hey, Victoria, why the hell are you talking about this stuff? Or no? She's just showing off. That's all. It's just showing off and trying to intimidate, I guess, she thinks that that kind of talk is going to intimidate or frighten the Russians, which clearly shows her gross ignorance of what the Russian mentality is. Tell me if you think this kind of talk will frighten or embolden the Russians. This is NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg announcing almost the unthinkable.

Let me be clear. Ukraine's rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO. NATO stands with you today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes. You know, he's delivering the message that the Nazis delivered to the Russians in World War II. The Russians are untermensch. They are less than human. They're not cultured. They're not European. They're Slavic. They're not worthy of being

considered human beings. That message comes across loud and clear to the Russians and erases any doubts they had that this is an existential fight, not just with Ukraine, but with the West, with NATO, with the United States. And as such, I think if nothing else, it stiffens the spine of the Russians to press this war to its end, to ensure that Ukraine is fully demilitarized, fully denazified, and taking out NATO in the process? Well, Larry, the Russians now almost must take Kiev because if the parts of Ukraine that they don't take are going to become part of NATO or treated by NATO as if they were a part of NATO, then Putin has NATO on his doorstep, which, of course, George H.W. and Jim Baker famously promised Prime Minister

Gorbachev would never happen. Yeah, in the coming months, it is highly likely that there will be great pressure on the part of NATO to try to intervene to come to the rescue of a very beleaguered Ukraine. All the happy talk will be eviscerated, if you will, by the various fixed-wing aircraft dropping big bombs all over Ukraine and destroying Ukrainian troops and equipment in place. And so as the United States and NATO try to ramp up their involvement, it really runs the risk of expanding this conflict. I mean, I think, candidly, that's why, you know, myself, Scott Ritter, Doug McGregor, Ray McGovern, Phil Giraldi, all of us are, you know, we're not trying to just be contrarians. We think there is such great risk, not just for the United States, but for the world and this escalating and getting out of control. This madness has got to stop. And the United States is one of the biggest

instigators of it. And we've got to recognize that. Do you think that Victoria Nuland could or would have made that statement without Secretary Blinken's approval? Do you think Secretary General Stoltenberg would have made his statement, we're going to treat you as if you are in NATO, Ukraine, don't worry, could or would have been made without Joe Biden's approval? I think Newland will say what she wants, regardless of what Blinken and Austin and Milley think. She wants Blinken's job. Yeah, well, she's actually sort of running the place right now anyway, truth be told.

How about Stoltenberg? It's hard for me to believe he would have said that without the U.S. and even the other globalists in Brussels having signed off on it first. Yeah, he's getting the signals from both State Department and the Pentagon that, yes, they're on board with that. That is the policy. As far as Joe Biden even being aware of where he is. That's a whole other question. But, you know, and people like Newland, really, they're carrying a lot of weight in this effort. It's not the Blinkens and the Sullivans are not the mastermind of this policy.

They're just water boys being asked to show up and make sure that the frontline players are getting a good drink. Gary's got a great clip when we do the short video versions of this, and it will be your last comments about Waterboys and time to get a drink. Larry Johnson, it's a beautiful summer-like Friday afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, Judge. Pleasure. Have a great weekend. We'll see you next week. Boy, if you like that and want more of it, like and subscribe. Judge Napolitano

for Judging Freedom.