Tulsi’s BOMBSHELL: Team Obama Doctored Intel To Push Russiagate

Gabbard’s Accusations Against the Obama Administration

The centerpiece of the episode is Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell assertion that the Obama administration deliberately doctored intelligence reports to falsely implicate Russia in interfering in the 2016 presidential election with the intent to help Donald Trump win. Gabbard claims to have declassified documents that reveal how intelligence officials under Obama knowingly created a false narrative, which was then sold to the American public as fact. She goes as far as to suggest that these actions amount to treason and has referred former President Obama and others for criminal investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Shapiro carefully unpacks the timeline and substance of these claims, highlighting a House Intelligence Committee report released by Gabbard that challenges the widely accepted January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). This report indicates that while Russia did interfere in the election, their goal was not to help Trump but rather to undermine faith in the democratic process and to weaken the expected Clinton administration. The House report criticizes the ICA for relying on questionable intelligence, including the infamous Steele dossier, and for selectively ignoring or misrepresenting evidence that contradicted the conclusion that Putin preferred Trump.

The episode emphasizes that the Obama White House, particularly figures like John Brennan and James Clapper, exerted unusual political pressure on intelligence agencies to produce a narrative favorable to the Russiagate theory. Senior CIA officers who dissented were reportedly silenced, and the ICA was rushed out before the Trump administration took office, preventing proper review and coordination.

Despite the gravity of these revelations, Shapiro cautions against overselling the case. He notes that much of this information has been known or suspected for years, and while the Obama administration’s conduct was improper and politically motivated, the leap to criminal charges such as treason is legally complex and unlikely to result in prosecution. He warns that overselling these claims risks disappointing the public and undermining the credibility of those seeking accountability.

The Epstein Files and the Trump Connection

Shapiro then transitions to the ongoing saga surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on recent judicial decisions and political maneuvers. A Florida judge denied the DOJ’s request to release grand jury transcripts related to Epstein’s 2005 and 2007 investigations, citing legal protections around grand jury secrecy and the potential harm to individuals named in the files. However, congressional efforts continue, with Representative James Comer arranging to depose Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted associate, in prison.

The episode addresses the persistent speculation about Donald Trump’s involvement in the Epstein scandal. Shapiro points out that Trump’s name appears multiple times in the files, which is unsurprising given their past social connections. However, DOJ officials reportedly briefed Trump on this and emphasized that mere mention in the files does not imply wrongdoing. Trump deferred to the DOJ’s judgment on whether to release further documents.

A tape from 2010 surfaced in which Epstein is asked about Trump and underage girls; Epstein invokes his constitutional rights and declines to answer. Shapiro explains that this is a standard legal move to avoid self-incrimination and should not be interpreted as evidence of guilt.

To provide deeper insight, Shapiro interviews journalist Michael Tracy, who offers a detailed, evidence-based perspective on the Epstein case. Tracy highlights the overselling of the story by some Trump administration figures and media personalities, noting that many allegations lack solid evidentiary support. He discusses the complexities of the Epstein prosecutions, including the nonprosecution agreement in Florida, the credibility issues surrounding key accusers like Virginia Giuffre, and the absence of evidence linking Epstein to intelligence agencies despite rumors.

Tracy also addresses the mystery of Epstein’s wealth, acknowledging that while some aspects remain unclear, there is no conclusive proof tying his fortune to blackmail or intelligence operations. He stresses the importance of transparency and cautions against unfounded conspiracy theories that undermine legitimate critiques of elite power structures.

Trump Administration’s Victory Over Columbia University

Shapiro highlights a significant win for the Trump administration in its legal battle with Columbia University. The Ivy League institution agreed to a sweeping settlement involving a $220 million payment and commitments to end racially discriminatory practices, particularly those affecting Jewish students and employees. Columbia will now be subject to independent monitoring to ensure compliance with merit-based admissions and hiring, and it has agreed to cooperate with law enforcement and ban masked protests on campus.

This settlement also includes the reinstatement of substantial federal research funding previously frozen due to the university’s alleged civil rights violations. Shapiro frames this as a strategic use of federal leverage to enforce legal compliance at elite institutions, contrasting it with Harvard’s ongoing resistance.

Economic and Political Landscape

The episode briefly touches on the Trump administration’s evolving tariff policies. While Shapiro personally disapproves of tariffs as economic tools, he acknowledges that the administration’s approach has normalized higher tariffs, which markets now view as less threatening than initially feared. Deals with Japan and the European Union are in progress, aiming to avoid more severe trade conflicts.

On the political front, Shapiro notes the internal divisions within the Democratic Party regarding how to approach a potential second Trump presidency. Some Democrats view Trump as an existential threat to democracy, while others see his return as manageable. Meanwhile, progressive Democrats continue to champion diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, which Shapiro critiques as radical and electorally damaging.