Scott Ritter was scheduled to attend and give a presentation at a major event called the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The details are unclear, but he has stated many times in various interviews that he plans to visit many Russian cities and meet with Russians to improve understanding between Russia and the U.S., portraying himself as someone who is trying to build bridges. He often mocks the State Department for not functioning in this way.
We’ll hear more from Ritter shortly, but he was removed from the plane on his first flight to St. Petersburg (an act of maximum brazenness and embarrassment that could have easily been stopped at the gate) and his passport confiscated. The only explanation he got from Customs and Border Protection officials was that the action was at the behest of the State Department.
There has been speculation on Twitter and among avid readers that Judge Napolitano’s trip to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum was also canceled by US authorities, or, even more extreme, that she was traveling with Mr. Ritter and was kicked off the plane with him – something Judge Napolitano denied twice on his first show on Monday. Beginning of interview with Alastair Crook:
My trip was canceled due to events in Russia that are not national or major diplomatic events, but are related to this trip.
and The start of a conversation with Larry JohnsonWe were going to have dinner together in St. Petersburg:
… The cancellation is out of my control and has nothing to do with me personally.
From Napolitano’s Twitter account:
Statement from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano:
“I was not on the plane or at the airport when this incident occurred. Scott’s free speech and travel rights were seriously violated. From a constitutional standpoint, I condemn the Department of State’s actions.”
— Judge Napolitano (@Judgenap) June 3, 2024
Napolitano also said he was glad to learn about the training changes before leaving for the airport, and Johnson sounded in high spirits when he spoke with him.
“Thus, even if some official action had been taken to prevent Mr. Napolitano’s travel, he has undermined any opportunity to file a protest by twice portraying the obstruction as having nothing to do with him personally. I am forced to think that Mr. Napolitano would not have been shrewd enough to not undermine his due process rights if he had wanted to avail himself of them before speaking with an attorney.”
Now, back to Ritter. Ritter is a controversial figure who likes to paint things in bright colors, and he has been criticized for some incorrect predictions about the Ukraine conflict, notably predicting an early Russian victory (which, to be fair, some Western officials predicted, too). Still, I found many of his comments valuable, especially the details about past experience, the courtesy of the UN and NATO, and military operations.
The legal justification for this measure is difficult to discern, not that the Biden administration is going to get hung up on such details. Even with a quick search, it is extremely difficult to find the legal justification for canceling or seizing passports. The actual text is repetitive, and the references to it seem oracular.1
Larry Johnson quickly came to Ritter’s defense, citing three grounds for revoking a passport: involvement in criminal activity, unpaid taxes and a request from law enforcement.
As noted in the footnote below, parties whose passports are revoked are supposed to receive written notice, but this did not happen in Ritter’s case.
The only way the State Department could get away with this is by committing tax heist, such as by having the IRS file tax notices that Ritter never received. Note that the IRS went through this mission to harass Matt Taibbi.
The IRS is targeting Matt Taibbi. Democrats use the IRS all the time to target people they perceive as a threat. pic.twitter.com/iKA85Jh1Mp
— Ultrathey (@ultrathey) March 28, 2023
For those unfamiliar with IRS practices, the IRS does not visit taxpayers at home. Typically, if the IRS wants to meet in person, they schedule an appointment and give the taxpayer the option to meet at an IRS office or at home. And it is usually related to an audit or complex/long-running dispute. Tax professionals uniformly recommend not letting the IRS into your home. The Wall Street Journal editorialand also described the authorities’ odd behavior regarding Taibbi’s tax returns.
Now, Matt Taibbi is telling Jordan’s committee that an IRS agent showed up at Jordan’s New Jersey home on March 9, the same day Taibbi testified before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government about what he learned about Twitter. The agent left a note instructing Taibbi to call the IRS four days later. During the call with the agent, Taibbi was told that his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected due to identity theft concerns.
Taibbi has provided documentation to the committee showing his 2018 return was accepted electronically, and he says the IRS did not notify him or his accountant of the problem after he filed his 2018 return more than four and a half years ago.
Taibbi said the IRS initially rejected his 2021 return, then resubmitted it, only to have it rejected again, even though his accountant resubmitted it with a pin code provided by the IRS. Taibbi noted that in both cases the issue wasn’t “financial,” and that the IRS owes him “substantial” amounts of money.
The bigger question is, when did the IRS start sending out agents and making surprise visits? Typically, if the IRS disputes part of a tax return, they will send a collection letter. Or they may request more information from you or the tax return preparer. If the IRS wants to audit your return, they will schedule a meeting at an agent’s office. They will not make an unannounced visit.
Ritter had just declared war on the Clooney Foundation in an attempt to silence pro-Russia reporting. Sputnik article on passport confiscation:
Ritter’s latest post on his Telegram channel warned that the Clooney Foundation for Justice was waging a crusade against “Russian propagandists.”
“Here I am, here I stand before you, and if telling the truth about Russia makes me a propagandist in your book, I accept the title,” he wrote. “Go ahead and I’ll teach you about the First Amendment.”
“You have no idea what freedom of speech is. Try arresting me and you will see. It’s war,” he added.
Could this just be a coincidence of timing… or has Ritter received a personal threat?
So it’s not hard to see this as a heavy-handed act of censorship, and I hope that free speech advocates will come together to expose this abuse of power.
Update: Mr. Ritter has clarified what happened on Judge Napolitano’s flight: He did not sit on the plane, as I initially suspected, but he did go through final boarding procedures, and after he passed through the plane entrance, three Customs and Border Protection agents stopped him and asked him to hand over his travel documents.
As for Napolitano, Ritter called him in the early hours of the morning before the boarding incident and told him not to travel to Russia because his sponsor for the trip had been arrested. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOsW84wYdzg
_______
1 Sure, it may depend on the circumstances of the search, but look at this document for yourself: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.60. Although it is titled “Passport Refusal and Restrictions,” it is about refusal to issue a passport, not about seizing or revoking a valid passport.
This document, “Passport Information for Law Enforcement,” explains to law enforcement officials how to petition a state to restrict or revoke a passport and includes the following:
Law enforcement agencies may request that we deny a passport under 22 CFR 51.60. Reasons for denial of a passport include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Active and unsealed federal arrest warrants.
• Federal or state criminal court orders;
• A condition of parole or probation that prohibits you from leaving the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court)
• Extradition request
But this doesn’t tell us anything about what basis the State Department will use to justify its claims.
This document from govinfocontains an image of the text of the statute’s section titled “Revocation or Restriction of Passports,” but it is very unexplainable. A later section describes restricting travel to countries with which the U.S. is at war, where armed conflict is ongoing, or where there is a danger to U.S. travelers. None of this merits action against Mr. Ritter alone. The only part that is clarified is this:
§ 51.65 Notice of passport denial or cancellation.
(a) Any person whose application for a passport is denied or whose passport is revoked will be notified in writing by the Department of State containing the specific reasons for the denial or revocation and, if applicable, the review procedures available under 22 CFR 51.70 through 51.74.
Ritter also did not receive the required written notice from the miscreants who kicked him off the plane.
