Eric Schmitt is neither cowed by China’s revenge lawsuit against him nor bashful in his support of sinking narco-terrorist boats.

The Missouri senator emerged Wednesday from a closed-door viewing of a controversial video in which multiple military strikes were needed to destroy one drug boat and the alleged couriers on board.

Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley has taken heat from congressional Democrats over the Sept. 2 incident – unfairly so, according to Schmitt.

“I think the Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves [for] trying to slander Admiral Bradley, who was executing a lawful order,” Schmitt told reporters after his viewing of the video Wednesday in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

“The men on the boat were trying to continue their mission; that’s the truth. And you’ve got to remember where this started: the Democrats and the Washington Post falsely claiming that there was a ‘kill everybody’ order. That’s false. That’s been debunked, even by the New York Times. 

“And so, in an effort to protect American citizens from the poisoning that’s happened – 100,000 people die every year – we have a vested interest in making sure these narco-terrorists don’t kill Americans. 

“In this instance, the people in the boat were sunk – and 100% legally justified.”

Schmitt elaborated on his views in an exclusive interview Thursday with The Heartlander.

“Well, I reviewed the legal justification, the 40-page-plus memo,” he noted. “Congress has delegated to the president the ability to designate terrorist organizations. He’s done that. These cartels have been designated, and they’re moving poison into our country that’s killed 100,000 Americans every year.

“The boat was still viable; the poison was still viable. And they were seeking to connect with other people, still, to deliver those drugs. Admiral Bradley was well within his rights and justified in taking the narco-terrorists and their boat out.”

U.S. presidents have been talking about a “war on drugs” since Nixon in 1971. Only now is a president taking the term literally.

“Yeah, and I think it’s important to put it into a broader context,” Schmitt says.

The context?

If by land or by sea

Trump sent FBI Director Kash Patel in November to seek China’s cooperation in stopping the flow of fentanyl’s precursor chemicals from China to places such as Mexico, where the drug is concocted and spirited into the U.S.

“So he’s taking that issue on,” Schmitt notes.

“We’ve effectively closed the southern border, the land border. That is a part of this. And now many of those narco-terrorists are taking to the high seas because the southern border is closed. Now he’s taking those folks out. 

“And you’ve also seen a dramatic decline in the number of those boats on the high seas. Surprise, surprise! If people feel like part of the job of delivering this to the United States … means they’re going to lose their life, there’s a deterrent effect.  

“So, I would say for those three reasons, we actually have a president now that’s taking this very seriously as opposed to just talking about it.”

Some have suggested there are other motivations driving Trump to corner Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro – including driving out world ne’er-do-wells such as Iran, China and Russia.

“As a fellow realist with the president, I’m glad that there’s more of a focus” on the Western Hemisphere,” Schmitt says. “I mean, there’s been such an obsession with the Middle East and Europe over the last 30 years. A more restrained foreign policy, I think, is a good thing. And it’s focused now more on the homeland and our own hemisphere, and then also with the Indo-Pacific and China. 

“But this is what it means. I mean, if you have somebody move in on your street who’s got a crack house, if they’re in your neighborhood, maybe you want to do something about that. Maybe you want to make sure that they’re not delivering the drugs to your kids and your neighbors, right? 

“Also, it’s an illegitimate government in Venezuela. We have sanctions on this shadow oil fleet, and you’ve seen the confiscation of those – so, a president who’s actually enforcing sanctions in a country like Venezuela, where they’ve released murderers and rapists into our country [and] are trying to poison Americans. …

“I think this is really about policing our own backyard and protecting Americans right now.”

“I’m from Missouri. We don’t scare easily”

Meanwhile, China has filed a $50 billion lawsuit against Schmitt, the state of Missouri and current and former state attorneys general – China’s response to Missouri’s $24 billion judgment for the Chinese Communist Party’s hoarding of personal protective equipment (PPE) during COVID.

Schmitt filed the successful lawsuit against China while state attorney general.

Does Schmitt find the filing even a little menacing?

“I’m not intimidated. I’m from Missouri. We don’t scare easily, so bring it.  

“But it is a badge of honor having been banned from China and now sued for $50 billion. So obviously, we’ve touched a nerve. 

“The fact is, they unleashed COVID on the world. And I get that they’re embarrassed by that, but suing a U.S. senator for $50 billion or suing a state seems a little desperate.”

Considering the Chinese tit-for-tat lawsuit is filed in China, will Schmitt be entering an appearance before that country’s courts?

“Well, considering I’m banned from China, I won’t be stepping foot there. But no, they have no personal jurisdiction over us.

“Ridiculous kangaroo court ruling”

“The CCP advises their judges on what to do and they swear allegiance to the CCP, so I’m sure there’s going to be some ridiculous kangaroo court ruling about it. But they’ve got no personal jurisdiction over me or the state of Missouri.  

“They can rattle the sabers all they want, but I think it’s telling that this is their reaction now, right? Because they’re very sensitive to the idea, as they should be, that they were the reason why COVID spread the way that it did around the world. 

“And they didn’t tell anybody. I mean, if you can look at the timeline as we laid it out, they were aware of it in at least late November [2019]. They cut off flights internally in their country from Wuhan to other places, but not internationally. 

“They were the largest exporter of PPE; they became the largest importer of PPE in that December month when they knew about COVID and the world didn’t. And they lied about it. 

“So, that’s why we have a $24 billion judgment, and that’s why we’re going to be able to execute on assets in the United States now, and they’re upset about that.”