“The right to free speech is more important than the consent of the speech.”

– Voltaire

August 26, 2024 – Since the early editions of Empire of Debt, we’ve been part of group of writers in Washington D.C. who informally call themselves The Empire Salon.

“We know we’re in the late stage of a degenerate Republic,” its founder John Henry told me when he first invited me to join, “we just want to sit around, drink wine and talk about it.”

John is a direct descendant of Patrick Henry, he of rebellious “give me liberty or give me death” fame. At the time of our first meeting, John had been a reader of The Daily Reckoning for a few years and invited me to talk to the group about the themes from Empire of Debt. 

The Empire Salon is loosely modeled after the old political salons of late 19th century Paris. An author presents his work – a book, a research paper, an essay, an article – then around the room discussion breaks out. 

Most of the attendees are foreign policy journalists and analysts from the upper crusty D.C. think tank scene. 

There’s even an old school listserv moderated by Chas Freeman, who most notably worked as the main interpreter for Richard Nixon during his 1972 China. 

Chas also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992, where he worked tirelessly during first Gulf War a decade before the “Shock and Awe” of Bush, the Younger. 

Over the weekend, Chas sent out an interesting piece written by Scott Ritter. The name may not be a household one unless you were a news junkie two decades ago. 

That’s because Ritter was the U.N. inspector who was sent to Iraq to investigate claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) prior to, and during, the Second Gulf War. 

At the time, Ritter was a critic of the 2nd Bush administration’s use of scare tactics around WMD as justification for the first “pre-emptive war” ever waged by the United Sates. 

Today, Scott is just short of being accused by the Department of Justice for being an agent of a foreign adversary. When, in fact, he’s doing equally critical work investigating NATO’s role and motives in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. 

His crime? Reporting his own findings, his own opinion and publishing that work on Russia Today (RT), another outfit with whom we have our own history, as well.  

The DOJ is investigating Ritter for publishing ideas outside the official government narrative… which makes him a foreign agent… and means he has violated U.S. law for failing to register as such. 

We’re publishing the first part of Ritter’s account of the story from his Substack account today. You may also remember we published a similar story on August 9th regarding former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, another Iraq war veteran and critic of the regime’s policy toward Ukraine. 

Gabbard had been placed on the “no-fly list” by the TSA despite being a war veteran and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii for 8 years until running for president against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the Democratic primary in 2020. 

Both Gabbard and Ritter have been outspoken in support of the First Amendment right to free speech… first (among equals) of the very rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, which Patrick Henry was willing to give his life for 249 years ago.  Enjoy ~~ Addison

There Can Be No Freedom… Without Free Speech

Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter Extra

The Department of Justice has launched a broad investigation which implicates the First Amendment free speech rights of not only those Americans, such as me, caught up in this web, but all Americans, because if the government succeeds in silencing free speech through its unlawful application of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, it won’t stop until it silences all dissenting voices in America.

I have written about the FBI’s August 7 raid on my home.

I have written about the collateral consequences of this raid.

I have written about my relationship with RT that appears to be at the center of the concerns expressed by the FBI agents carrying out the raid.

At the time, I noted that the FBI was unable or unwilling to articulate specific allegations linked to their statements that the search was related to concerns regarding my activities as they relate to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA.

I wrote a letter to the Chief of the Department of Justice’s FARA Enforcement Unit requesting that they provide me with the evidence that underpinned their concerns so that I might be able to evaluate them and respond.

To date I have heard nothing in return.

We now have an update, so to speak.

The New York Times has published an article jointly authored by Steven Lee Meyers and Julian Barnes titled “US Investigating Americans who worked with Russian State Television.” I am named, along with Dimitri Simes, as the initial target of this investigation, which is described by the Times as “a broad criminal investigation” intended “to combat the Kremlin’s influence operations leading up to the presidential election in November.” According to the Times, “more searches are expected soon.”

The predicate for this investigation appears to be a July 29 “Election Security Update” published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) which warns of actions undertaken by “foreign actors” to conduct “influence operations targeting US elections this November.”  ODNI accuses Russia of “leveraging Russia-based influence for hire firms” to “create influence platforms” which “directly and discreetly” engage Americans “to tailor content for US audiences while hiding Russia’s hand.”

Russia, along with China and Iran, is accused of relying upon “witting and unwitting Americans to seed, promote, and add credibility to narratives” that serve Russian interests. Russia is specifically accused of using “networks of US and other Western personalities to create and disseminate Russian-friendly narratives. These personalities post content on social media, write for various websites with overt and covert ties to the Russian Government, and conduct other media efforts.”

“Russia,” the ODNI report states, “remains the predominant threat to US elections. Moscow continues to use a broad stable of influence actors and tactics and is working to better hide its hand, enhance its reach, and create content that resonates more with US audiences. These actors are seeking to back a presidential candidate in addition to influencing congressional electoral outcomes, undermine public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbate sociopolitical divisions.”

I was interviewed by Mr. Meyers for this article, and the article accurately reflects my statements and position regarding this investigation, which I called “a frontal assault on the Constitution of the United States.”

The Times article’s authors note that the investigation “could also bump up against the First Amendment’s protection of rights to free speech.”

I disagree.

This investigation tramples over the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The protections in the Bill of Rights, such as forbidding Congress from abridging free speech, did not become part of the legal and social conscious of America until the 20th century, when the Supreme Court began vigorously to use the Bill of Rights as the defining document of what constitutes liberty and equality in America.  

Regarding free speech, the Supreme Court has stated that, “as a general matter, the First Amendment means the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Like any constitutional right, there is no absolute protection of free speech. 

However, the Supreme Court has tailored a narrowly defined exception of free speech, known as the Giboney exception (after a 1949 case, Giboney v Empire Storage & Ice Co.) which holds that First Amendment immunity does not extend to speech “used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.”

The “Giboney exception,” however, cannot “justify treating speech as ‘integral to illegal conduct’ simply because the speech is illegal under the law that is being challenged.”

I have not been formally charged with a crime. The FBI, however, when conducting the search of my home, indicated that the legal justification behind the search was concerns about my speech as it applied to FARA.

This is a literal case of the Department of Justice using a law (FARA) to criminalize free speech by making free speech illegal under the law.

The ODNI threat assessment appears to be concerned about what can only be described as political speech.

This is problematic in the extreme.

There is no doubt that I am highly critical of the policies of the United States in instances where they clash with my strongly-held positions on war and peace, arms control and disarmament, and the role of the United States in world affairs. 

Ever since the US government fabricated a case for war to justify the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, I have spoken out publicly in opposition to policies which I believe promote unnecessary conflict and are disruptive to the cause of peace.

In one example of this, I was invited by the Abu Dhabi-based Zayid Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, an Arab League think tank funded by UAE Deputy Prime Minister Shaykh Sultan Bin Zayid Al-Nahyan, to give an address about the US push for war with Iraq. Deputy Prime Minister Sultan attended the lecture in person, “in a rare public appearance,” a US Embassy cable commenting on my presentation noted.

“Addressing the diplomatic and press corps,” the diplomatic cable noted, “Ritter predictably derided [Secretary of State Colin Powell’s] ‘smoke and mirrors’ presentation [before the UN Security Council], noting that the US., bent on regime change, is determined to undermine the inspections’ process. Ritter,” the cable continued, “posited that as long as the US focus is on regime change, the international community must remain suspicious of US policy and all Americans assigned to inspection teams in Iraq should be considered intelligence agents.  He described US Iraq policy as being part of a grander design aimed at regional transformation and took issue with what he characterized as our unilateralist approach. Ritter predicted a popular Iraqi uprising against a U.S. occupation of Iraq, coupled with broader instability in the region which could result in the downfall of some Arab governments.”

If there ever was a poster child for the value of free speech by Americans in opposing US foreign policy, my presentation in Abu Dhabi is it. In opposing US policy, and the deceptions it was based upon, I correctly defined the heart of the failed policy (regime change versus disarmament), as well as the consequences of implementing it (a popular uprising against the US occupiers, and the 2010 Arab Spring.)

I had been invited to Abu Dhabi by an institute funded and directed by a foreign government.

I was paid an honorarium for my appearance.

According to the Department of Justice’s current legal theory, I could have been prosecuted under FARA for engaging in political speech at the direction of a foreign government.

But my only “crime” would have been speaking truth to power which, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, is no crime at all.

It is an American right.

An American obligation.

Protected by the First Amendment.

Today I continue to speak out against bad US foreign policy.

The opinions I express are mine and mine alone, derived from a lifetime of experience and study, bolstered by conversations and observations made during my interactions with Russians, both civilian and government alike.

And, according to the New York Times, the Department of Justice is apparently seeking to criminalize my ability to freely express these opinions.

The ODNI threat assessment is particularly worrisome, in so far as it not only targets “personalities” such as myself, but also the platforms I use to publish the content I produce, whether it be in the form of articles, videos, or live-stream discussions. The threat, as articulated by ODNI, comes in the form of the Russian government’s alleged infiltration of these platforms to promote a pro-Russian narrative.

During their questioning of my wife on August 7, the FBI pointedly asked about my podcast, Ask the Inspector, and how my co-host and partner, Jeff Norman, paid me.

I was asked similar questions.

The clear implication in asking these questions is that the Department of Justice is concerned that the platforms I use to publish me material—my Substack, my podcasts, my X and Telegram accounts—are part and parcel of a Kremlin disinformation campaign designed to interfere in the 2024 US elections.

This argument is facially ludicrous.  The Ask the Inspector podcast was the byproduct of a brainstorming session between Jeff Norman and myself, on how we could capitalize on the popularity my appearances on other podcasts had generated. The feeling was that we could collaborate to produce quality content that might be able to generate some income. The Russian government had nothing whatsoever to do with our decision to create Ask the Inspector, or to create a Substack where I would publish content we could then discuss on our podcast. 

[To be continued in Part II tomorrow] ~~ Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter Extra

So it goes, 

Addison Wiggin, 

Grey Swan

P.S.  A researcher within our Grey Swan fraternity is investigating an Executive Order put into place by the Biden Administration on January 30, 2023 that allows – in fact, even instructs – agents of the intelligence community to “legally” spy on U.S. citizens for social media posts they deem to be “misinformation” – political or otherwise. 

We’ve had some experience with our own Wiggin Sessions interviews being censored by YouTube because the subject of the interviews included conversations with doctors, scientists and in particular one filmmaker who were investigating Anthony Fauci and his role in pandemic era vaccine and enforcement of social policy.

There’s far more to the “free speech” argument in the era of social media and rapidly developing AI use in government policy enforcement. Part II of Ritter’s Substack post and more thoughts, tomorrow. Stay tuned…

Please send your helpful comments, especially with regard to our own investigation, to addison@greyswanfraternity.com. 

P.P.S. How did we get here? Get a provocative view of the financial, economic, and political history of the United States from Demise of the Dollar through Financial Reckoning Day and on to Empire of Debt — all three books are now available in their third post-pandemic editions.