2,277 videos 1,364,597,333 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff Debate Tulsi Gabbard's Bombshell DNI Declassification on Obama Era Russia Claims
Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff engage in a candid debate about DNI Tulsi Gabbard's explosive declassification of documents alleging a "treasonous conspiracy" by Obama administration officials to undermine President Trump's presidency. Gabbard claims that Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and Susan Rice manufactured intelligence reports about Russian interference in the 2016 election, contradicting earlier assessments, and used the debunked Steele dossier to launch what she calls a "years-long coup." While Kolvet argues for accountability given the downstream effects of the Russia hoax, Neff urges caution about the legal and political realities of prosecuting former officials. The discussion explores what realistic consequences might look like and whether America should pursue justice for actions that consumed Trump's first term.
Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of The Charlie Kirk Show, opened the episode with what he called the bombshell story of the morning: DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassifying documents from 2016-2017 that allegedly reveal a coordinated effort by Obama administration officials to undermine President Trump's incoming presidency. Blake Neff joined from the Bitcoin.com studios to provide a contrarian perspective on the developing story.
According to Gabbard's claims, after President Trump won the 2016 election, President Barack Obama and top officials including James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and Susan Rice engaged in what she describes as a "treasonous conspiracy" to delegitimize Trump's victory. The allegation centers on a manufactured intelligence assessment claiming Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, despite earlier intelligence briefings concluding the opposite.
The key evidence Gabbard points to includes a December 9th meeting where Obama allegedly directed officials to produce a new intelligence assessment. This assessment, released on January 6, contradicted prior reports about Russian interference. Officials then leaked these claims to major media outlets including the Washington Post, NBC, and the New York Times, pushing the narrative that Russia interfered and influenced the election outcome. Gabbard alleges they used the now-debunked Steele dossier to build this assessment, resulting in what she calls a "years-long coup" that led to the Mueller investigation, two impeachments, arrests of officials, and heightened US-Russian tensions.
The Case for Accountability
Kolvet argued passionately for accountability, emphasizing the emotional and practical toll the Russia investigation took on Trump's first term and the American public. He pointed out that the allegations, if proven true, show Obama officials deliberately changing course from their initial intelligence assessments. On September 9, a presidential daily briefing stated that Russia probably was not trying to influence the election through cyber manipulation of election infrastructure. Similarly, on December 7, James Clapper's talking points assessed that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks to alter the election outcome.
But then, according to Gabbard's timeline, everything changed on December 8th when they suddenly pivoted to producing a new assessment. By early January, they released talking points suggesting Russia interfered in the election, though Kolvet acknowledged they stopped short of directly claiming Russia changed election results.
Kolvet's frustration was evident as he described what he sees as a two-sided coin strategy: "They're not going to come out and instantly in an intel assessment and say Trump coordinated with Russia. That would have been a misstep. The smarter play was to say Russia was certainly doing this. They're taking pieces of the Steele dossier, leaking the narrative to the press and seeding it, and then the rest of the work is done by the media and by talking heads on TV and next thing you know Trump is colluding with Russia."
He emphasized that what makes this so egregious is what Democrats did to President Trump: "They tried to throw President Trump in prison for 700 years. They tried to bankrupt him. They impeached him twice. They raided his home." Kolvet argued that there has to be accountability for the intelligence community because what they did was completely out of bounds and had tremendous downstream effects, including Hillary Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate president for years.
The Case for Caution
Blake Neff provided the counterbalance, urging caution about both the legal realities and political wisdom of pursuing prosecutions. He pointed out that much of what Gabbard highlighted consists of documents we've already seen before, and that there's a "sleight of hand" in how the evidence is being presented.
Neff explained that the early memos being treated as smoking guns actually never say Russia changed election results. What they say is that Russia wanted Trump to win and did other activities, which led to the collusion narrative about the Trump campaign actively working with Vladimir Putin. "That was total nonsense. That was total BS. But that is not what is being said in these early memos that are being treated as the smoking gun. They're kind of taking two things that are" different, he argued.
On potential prosecutions, Neff was skeptical. Regarding treason charges, he noted that treason is specifically defined in the Constitution as levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. "I think it would be a big stretch to suddenly just stretch that to basically just saying, well, they're undermining the administration and so that's treasonous. Frankly, that is exactly why we wrote that provision in the constitution that way because the old English governments love to use the law that way and the founders didn't care for that."
Even on perjury charges, where Neff acknowledged that Brennan "100% perjured himself to Congress long ago on things like drones on spying on Americans," the maximum penalty under federal law is five years, and statute of limitations issues might apply. Stephen Miller has mentioned seditious conspiracy rather than treason, but Neff remained doubtful about successfully bringing such cases.
The Political Reality
Perhaps Neff's strongest argument concerned the political implications of going after Obama administration officials. "It's important to flag political difficulties to this. They're definitely highlighting Obama here. Obviously, President Trump has his differences with President Obama, but I think it's worth reminding people, broadly speaking, Obama's pretty popular with most Americans. And I think it could end up being a distraction if they're trying to drag Obama into court for his actions at the very end of his presidency because they're mad about how they handled an election that Trump won a decade ago."
Neff also pointed out a crucial distinction: "Obama didn't appoint the special counsel. Comey didn't appoint the special counsel. The Trump administration appointed the special counsel." Rod Rosenstein, acting under direction from Jeff Sessions, made that decision. The special counsel happened because of Comey's firing, which Obama officials didn't do—President Trump did that himself.
He reminded the audience of what happened when Democrats tried to put their political opposition in prison: "Donald Trump got elected again last November. They made him a lot more powerful. They basically guaranteed he would be the nominee and it exploded in their faces." There are clear political downsides to appearing to weaponize the justice system.
Tulsi Gabbard's Own Words
In a clip played during the discussion, DNI Tulsi Gabbard stated: "Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama, just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic."
Gabbard has handed over the documents to the DOJ and is calling for prosecutions. Democrats including Jim Himes and Senator Mark Warner have dismissed these claims as baseless.
Finding the Balance
Kolvet acknowledged the value in Neff's cautionary perspective: "I tend to be a gas pedal and you can be my brake sort of thing and so I fully appreciate where you're coming from and I want to see this thing clear-eyed." He agreed that America shouldn't become a country constantly convulsed by legal infighting where we're trying to throw people in prison all the time—that's not the America either of them grew up in.
However, Kolvet pushed back on the idea that this was merely about "distraction." It wasn't just distraction—it was completely undermining the legitimacy of the 45th president. He also disputed Neff's point about Trump being uniquely able to overcome such attacks: "Just because he was able to overcome all of this, everything that was thrown at him, is more of a testament to him and his willpower and his courage than it is to sort of saying, 'Hey, this backfired because it's a dumb thing to do.' It very well could have been a very smart thing to do. It just didn't work out for them this time."
The potential targets for accountability, according to Kolvet, don't necessarily have to include Obama himself. There's James Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Susan Rice, and Valerie Jarrett—all present in that crucial meeting. President Trump himself has been posting images of these officials, dubbed "the Shady Bunch."
What Realistic Accountability Looks Like
When Kolvet asked what realistic accountability would actually look like, Neff checked federal perjury statutes and found a maximum of five years. That's far from the dramatic prosecutions some in the base might be hoping for. Kolvet acknowledged this reality: "There is a segment of the base that's not going to be happy until we see Anthony Fauci and Brennan strung up from their entrails or something. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen."
Both agreed that measured expectations are important. As Kolvet put it: "We have to guard against our emotions. Think rationally, prudently." At the same time, he insisted: "I do believe that there has to be actionable offenses here because of what ultimately happened. The Russia Russia Russia narrative spread like wildfire on purpose because they leaked it. They used the Steele dossier in order to do it which has been completely discredited, was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, turned out to be completely and utterly false, and yet our nation was dragged into the mud for a very very long time as a result."
Other Major News Stories
Before diving into the Gabbard story, Kolvet rattled off a rapid-fire list of other major developments. Borders czar Tom Homan announced plans to triple down in sanctuary cities, flooding the zone with enforcement. This comes after an egregious shooting in New York City where two Dominican nationals who were in the country illegally tried to rob and then shot an off-duty Customs and Border Patrol agent.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is zeroing in on the Federal Reserve, saying he's not even sure what all these PhDs do there. President Trump is calling for an end to cashless bail and for restoration of team names like the Redskins and Indians, which Kolvet endorsed as common sense pushback against peak woke culture. There's pressure on the Senate to confirm Trump's nominees and judges down the line.
Even former President Obama has admitted that Democrats have villainized young men. Meanwhile, in Canada and the UK, Justin Trudeau and King Charles are blessing what Kolvet described as the Muslim takeover of those countries. As Kolvet put it: "There's a lot going on today."
The Path Forward
The debate between Kolvet and Neff represents the tension within the conservative movement about how to respond to the Russia hoax revelations. On one side is the justified anger about years of false narratives, investigations, and attempts to delegitimize a duly elected president. On the other is the practical reality of what can actually be prosecuted, what the American public will support, and whether pursuing these cases becomes a distraction from the current administration's agenda.
What's clear is that Tulsi Gabbard, as DNI, is not backing down from her characterization of what happened as a "treasonous conspiracy." She's released over 100 documents to support her claims and handed everything over to the DOJ. Whether that leads to prosecutions, and what those prosecutions might accomplish, remains to be seen.
As the discussion was cut short to bring on Senator Rick Scott, the fundamental question remained unresolved: In a country that should not be constantly convulsed by political prosecutions, how do you balance the need for accountability with the wisdom of moving forward? And can justice be served without becoming the very thing conservatives have criticized Democrats for attempting with President Trump?
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.