All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
23:21
Ray McGovern : CIA a Threat to US Security.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, April 7th, 2025.
Ray McGovern joins us now.
Ray, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
Before we have a conversation about the CIA and its role in American history and American society, and whether that role has been an asset or negative, I have to talk to you about some of the pressing issues.
As we speak, Prime Minister, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump are meeting in the White House, and I can't help but think of our mutual friend Gerald Salanti, one of whose favorite lines is, when all else fails, they take you to war.
I mean, the economy is tanking.
Republicans are rebelling.
Trump has a lot of issues at home.
Netanyahu has very, very serious criminal issues against him and members of his staff also at home.
Do you think the two of them are talking about when, where and how to attack Iran?
Well, Judge, today is crucial.
Netanyahu is getting the word from Trump.
What that word is will eventually come out later today or tomorrow, and that's precisely when Russian, Chinese, and Iranian delegations are meeting in Moscow on the Iranian nuclear issue.
So, Alasdair Crook, for whom I have great respect, points out that he doesn't understand the hold that Netanyahu has on Trump.
Neither do I. And so what is going to happen now is unpredictable by definition.
I have a slightly different view from Alistair.
It comes out of my great power chauvinist idea that there are still great powers in the world, and that it will be the US, Russia, and China that have the immediate effect of what eventuates.
And I see the Russians Being most interested in reaching a decent relationship with Trump and Trump even more so placing all his eggs in the basket of a resolution of Ukraine that doesn't result in obvious abject retreat or defeat and working out a decent relationship with Russia.
To do the other things he may or may not want to do in the rest of the world.
Now, the point is simply that if Trump allows himself to be mousetrapped by Netanyahu for reasons that Alistair and I both don't understand, and if you don't understand, just let us know, okay?
If that happens, that's the end of detente.
It's the end of rapprochement.
And I see the Russians looking at as the existential, as the most, as the pinnacle of what needs to be done now in Ukraine.
And I believe the Russians are willing to bargain.
They had their top economic guy in Washington just over the weekend for two days, and he says that there are three steps forward.
So there is a congealing of interests on the part of the Russians and the U.S., and that is Trump.
And the Chinese, because the Chinese depend heavily on oil from Iran.
I think it's around 30% of their oil.
So whether this will eventuate in Trump saying, my God, I don't care.
For reasons that Alistair and Ray don't understand, I'm going with Netanyahu.
Well, that's trouble.
Because this time, in my view, the Russians and the Chinese are not going to shrink away from making military maneuvers, threatening ones.
And this could end up in an armed conflict.
Well, the reason is probably the iron grip that the Zionist lobby, the donor class, has on the government of the United States, even though, notwithstanding his refusal to acknowledge the 22nd Amendment, the president is a lame duck.
Nevertheless, he has a Congress to deal with, which is very much in the grip of the Of the Zionist lobby.
But just to segue a little bit into what you were talking about, what do you think the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians are talking about?
Are the Iranians saying, well, you guys come to our defense.
We've got to keep selling oil.
Of course they are.
If Israel and the U.S. attack.
Well, as Alistair pointed out very cogently, the die is cast.
There's this executive order to do in Iran.
Now, the only way I would differ from Alistair a little bit is the way you did, that the Constitution is not sacred anymore, and neither are executive orders.
He changes executive orders at the drop of a hat.
Who knows?
He may change the tariffs tomorrow if the pressure gets dry with him.
with Trump is the uncertainty and instability caused in the markets by this.
But what do you think the Russians will say if the Iranian delegation says, "You got to Well, there is, as you know, something just short of a mutual defense treaty between Iran and Russia concluded in January.
Now, Putin is very perspicacious.
It is not literally a mutual defense treaty because neither side is obligated to go to the aid of the other side in the event of war, but it's almost that, okay?
Each side is prohibited from aiding the enemy if some enemy attacks the other side.
Now, what does that mean?
Well, it means not only Russia and China because of the oil that comes out of the Persian Gulf.
...are existentially involved in this thing.
They don't want this kind of war.
And they're capable of getting together tomorrow and saying either,"Oh God, Netanyahu got everything he wanted yesterday," or they're going to say there's still leeway.
And their reaction will be shaped by their interpretation of what happens today between Netanyahu and Trump.
And I dare say military action will not be excluded.
Not only air defense help for Iran, which they have considerable already, but I see the Chinese threatening Taiwan in ways they have seldom done before.
They can easily put a ring around Taiwan and do a little embargo.
They can cause all kinds of trouble that Trump doesn't expect because he's got no-brainers advising him.
So the ball is in the court of Netanyahu and Trump today.
Tomorrow it's in Moscow.
We're the three.
And bear in mind, Wang Yi, that incredibly apt and adept foreign minister of China, visited Putin just a week ago.
So they're preparing for the worst here.
They're reading Trump as being not only mercurial, but unpredictable.
Sort of a redundancy there.
But that means a lot.
And what happens today will sort of set the Tone for the meeting tomorrow in Moscow.
So, we both know, you and I, and most people watching us know, that the American intelligence assessment is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and hasn't been working on one for going back as far as 2007.
This is, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the universal assessment of the American intelligence community.
It was unanimous and it was expressed with high confidence and it was November 2007 saying they stopped back in the end of 2003, had not resumed and the most recent threat assessment said that the Supreme Leader has shown no indication that he is going to reauthorize this, that he unauthorized back at the end of 2003.
That's 22 years ago if my math is right.
Unbelievable. Does Mossad share the same assessment?
They must!
Of course.
They lie through their teeth.
They come up with laptops that show the opposite.
But the analysts in Mossad are quite clear on what the situation is.
And so is Netanyahu.
Netanyahu, as we all know, is in real domestic difficulties.
Whether that will be enough I don't understand it.
I don't know, but that's what they'll be talking about tomorrow in Moscow.
Realistically speaking, is Iran a threat to the United States?
Is Iran a threat to Israel?
No, and it's perceived to be a threat to Israel.
Because it's the only power that's capable of preventing greater Israel.
Now, the U.S. has supported Israel up the kazoo.
Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, for God's sake.
And Iran has always been the next in the crosshairs.
I mean, back in 2002, 2003, the neocons were saying, real men go to Tehran.
Not Baghdad.
Well, they acquiesced.
They did Baghdad first, and then Syria, and then Libya.
And, you know, it never ends.
And so what's happening in Moscow is sui generis.
We have a completely different constellation of forces.
The old Soviets used to say, You know, the balance, the correlation of forces in the world, okay?
Well, they correlate in a way where Russia and China are now the strong lines on this isosceles triangle, and the isosceles triangle has the U.S. on the short end of the stick.
They're going to impress the U.S. upon that tomorrow, whatever the result is, and they're going to say, look, we will not stand idly by.
If you attack Iran.
The whole thing now is prevention.
And I think that they will be able to prevent this.
If not, then we have a different question.
Let me just segue a little bit and then we'll get back to this.
Suppose the IDF captures and conquers Damascus.
What will the reaction be?
Well, they can do that, of course.
Whether they would do that in an unnecessary way, I mean, they got what they want in Syria.
Now, I don't know.
The reaction would be, well, we would denounce it.
We would say, well, that's not a really good idea, but sotto voce, we would support it.
Now, that could come to an end today, as even now, Trump is talking to Netanyahu.
They're both unpredictable, but Netanyahu is in trouble deep, as we used to say in the comic books.
He's in deep trouble, okay?
So when Trump will let Netanyahu's domestic difficulties, he may well end up in jail in that bridal suite with his wife, okay?
If he's going to let that inform U.S. policy, we're all in trouble, and the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians are going to say, no, you're not going to do that this time.
This is a bridge too far, in my view.
The demands that Trump has made on Iran If complied with, would almost emasculate it of its sovereignty.
No nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, no offensive weaponry.
I mean, it is one thing to make demands that are difficult.
It's another thing to make demands that are impossible.
Why would Iran even consider complying with that?
And what is Trump trying to do, demanding something that they can't comply with, or will bomb you like you've never been bombed before?
Just as before Iraq, and I know this to be the case, those position papers are formed, drafted, given to the Pentagon or the NSC by Mossad, by the Israeli government.
This is the maximalist position, and of course Trump is well known.
Well, high-level bluster.
None of those terms, none of them, zero, can be acquiesced in by a sovereign power.
And this time it's different.
There's a mutual, there's a treaty with Russia.
There are agreements with China.
And both Russia, China, and Iran have practiced naval exercises for this last couple of years.
It's dangerous territory for Trump.
He needs to realize that Iran is not in this alone.
And once again, I'll go back to my major point here.
I think both Trump and Putin are putting priority on creating a better situation in the U.S. So I've seen this before.
And when they give priority to that, you get things like neutral arms reductions.
You get all kinds of things.
And with the other equities.
I hope you're right.
And I hope Alistair is right.
But I'm terrified because...
I don't know who's meeting with Trump and Netanyahu.
I don't think they're going to meet alone.
I'm sure Netanyahu has his own advisors with him.
Whoever Trump brings to that meeting, or whomever he confers with as soon as he finishes the meeting, we know one thing for certain, will be an ardent Zionist.
An ardent Zionist.
There will be nobody there saying, well, did you consider this?
Well, did you consider that?
Why should we do everything that Netanyahu wants?
Iran doesn't pose a threat to us.
I don't even know if those countervailing arguments will be offered to President Trump.
Well, Judge, you can be sure that the Director of National Intelligence was encouraged very strongly to change her view and to do what they did before Iraq, prostitute the intelligence process and say, oh, by the way, Netanyahu just gave us two more laptops which show that...
Iran is now this close to a nuclear weapon.
Now, Tulsi Gabbard, to her credit, whatever else you say about it, she resisted those pressures.
So now it's going to be unlike this previous run, which was when Bush and Cheney were exiting the scene in 2008 and 2007.
They were preparing to attack Iran with Israel.
And some perspicacious person who was still around in Washington said, let's do an estimate.
And that estimate was the one in November of 2007, which said unanimously, with high confidence, Iran has stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003.
Now, for her to reiterate that under these circumstances deprives Trump of that pretext, just as Bush was deprived of it.
And as he wrote in his book, Decision Points, mind you, this was a bummer for, quote, how could I possibly authorize an attack?
On the nuclear facilities of a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program.
Period. End quote.
Bummer! So they went into the western sunset without attacking Iran.
Whether that will happen this time or not depends on a most mercurial, a most unpredictable person, and whether someone like Tulsi Gabbard, or maybe in Witkoff, you know, he said, wait a second, I forgot to tell you, Mr. President.
This could mean a regional war.
It could mean a world war.
Maybe we ought to ease off a bit.
You know, this is a slim read to rely on.
But I think when we see what they come out with in Moscow tomorrow, we'll have a better idea as to how strong the support that Iran thinks it can rely on now, how strong it is.
How dangerous is the Central Intelligence Agency to American national security?
Extremely dangerous.
They assassinate presidents.
And I would say...
Judge, this is serious, okay?
If I were an advisor, if I were bringing the PDB, the President's Daily Brief, to Mr. Putin, as I did to Mr. Reagan, I would have to say, Mr. Putin, last time an American president reached out to have a decent relationship with Russia to negotiate and to realize that we were allies one big time 80 years ago, last time that happened, they killed him, all right?
So... Trump is trying to do that now.
Be aware.
They may well do the same thing to him.
And so, the consequences are, make a deal with him while he's still around.
You have some leeway on Ukraine.
He wants a deal.
Give him enough to prevent him from totally capitulating.
And then we can have a decent relationship.
That is a big deal.
He wants it.
You want it.
But realize, He may not be around very much longer.
They may well do him in because the majority of people in Washington want to instill hate for you.
They've done a wonderful job for the last eight years or so.
Does the CIA continue to have the even under Ratcliffe, Gabbard, and Trump?
The operations branch that ferments coups and kills people.
Of course they do.
And let me just remind people, George Kennan, my hero, okay, when I was beginning to realize what the Soviet Union was, he said lots of things.
But one of the most recent things he said before he died was, you know, my greatest mistake.
My greatest mistake was in 1948 authorizing the CIA to conduct sabotage of all manner of things with express permission from the President of the United States, okay?
So, the legislation in 1947 said that the CIA can perform such other functions and duties as the President shall from time to time direct, but the next...
The next resolution by the NSC, authored by Kennan, said they could expressly do all these other things.
Look it up!
And Kennan said, that was the biggest mistake I made in my whole career.
So there you have it.
And watch out, Mr. Trump.
The stakes are so high.
The people that try to do you in during your first four years and try to prevent you from being president in the first place in 2016.
They're still around.
If you let those papers out, they will be legally, they will be criminally liable.
They have lots of incentive to make sure that you're not around very much longer.
I do not exaggerate.
I've been around.
Someone else who deeply and profoundly regretted authorizing the CIA is the person Who signed the National Security Act of 1947, President Harry Truman.
And you remember when he wrote an op-ed condemning the CIA in the morning edition of the Washington Post in the days when they had morning and evening editions.
This is the former president of the United States, and the CIA got it blocked in the evening edition.
You can still look up that great piece.
Exactly right.
It was exactly one month.
It was December.
22nd. We have the correspondence between Harry Truman and Admiral Sowers, his intelligence chief.
They composed this very deliberately, and the title was something like, I didn't create the CIA to do these things.
And he meant not only assassinations, meant misleading, misleading the president, as John Kennedy was misled by the operations people who said, We'll have an uprising in Cuba and Castro will be thrown down, okay? They didn't even consult the analysts, and that's shown in the Schlesinger memo that is now fully released.
They didn't consult the analysts on the analytic side who said, this is crazy, this is preposterous.
Fidel Castro is the most popular.
He'll probably come and man some guns on the beach, and he did.
So the CIA is bifurcated in a way that was never healthy.
They should go away with the operations center and put it in a Pentagon where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere.
Let the analysts speak truth to power, which I'm happy to say they continue to do on Iran nuclear.
Ray McGovern, a pleasure, my dear man.
Thank you for sharing the breadth of your knowledge on all of this.
It's always so helpful.
Look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with that youngster, Larry Johnson.
Most welcome, Judge.
Thank you.
All the best.
And the aforementioned Larry Johnson will be here at 1130 this morning, Eastern.
I have three this afternoon on all of these topics, including, by then we should have heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, America preparing for war with Iran.
▲
Export Selection