free stats

Published On: Fri, Jul 25th, 2025

Kenin Spivak Breaks Down Russia Hoax In Three Parts: What Was Done, Was It Criminal, And Is It Prosecutable?

RCP contributor Kenin Spivak breaks down the Obama-driven Trump-Russia collusion investigation with Real America’s Voice host Grant Stinchfield. Spivak also discussed his latest piece for “The American Mind,” Exposing the Russia Hoaxers.

GRANT STINCHFIELD, REAL AMERICA’S VOICE HOST: Welcome back, everyone. I guess you’d call this breaking news. It’s related to the Obama collusion that we saw inside the Obama White House and then inside the Biden White House, and everything that happened during Trump’s first presidency. Tulsi Gabbard said this about Obama. REPORTER: Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior? DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TULSI GABBARD: We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this. For even former President Obama? Correct. The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. STINCHFIELD: All right, so Tulsi Gabbard has done a fabulous job uncovering all of this. Think about how well it was hidden during the first Trump White House. Now she uncovers it. In many respects, as she uncovers stuff, she can keep sending it to the DOJ. She can wash her hands clean of this. And now it’s Pam Bondi’s problem. So what is Pam Bondi going to do with all of this? Now, Tulsi Gabbard does a great job of making the case against Obama, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, all of these clowns. Here she is at that White House press briefing today. GABBARD: There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t. The report that we released today shows in great detail how they carried this out. STINCHFIELD: What is amazing to me is the mainstream media does not want to talk about this story. When you think about what happened, folks, and just to put it in the most simple fashion, you’ve got the entire Democrat Party, you’ve got the entire corporate media apparatus screaming, Trump-Russia collusion, Trump-Russia collusion. Meanwhile, the intelligence community say, uh-uh, that didn’t happen. No evidence of that. Barack Obama and his crew of purveyors of misinformation decide to come up with an alternative assessment that ends up becoming the catalyst for the impeachment of President Trump. All the while they knew it wasn’t true and the media covers it up. KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And reporters at legacy outlets, some of which are sitting in this room today, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, were ridiculously awarded Pulitzer prizes for their perpetuation of this hoax. It’s well past time for those awards to be stripped from the journalists who receive them. It is not journalism to propagate political disinformation in service of the Democrat Party and those in the intelligence community who hand over out of context and fake intelligence to push a false political narrative. STINCHFIELD: Here’s the thing. Pulitzer, that organization would have egg on its face. And in fact, does. Because I had been telling you this was a hoax from the very start and I wasn’t alone. Most of my conservative counterparts were also screaming and yelling, do not believe the mainstream media. So you talk about a media coverup. Guess what? It continued today. I want you to check this out. Major cable networks, CNN, cuts away from Tulsi Gabbard as she’s getting to the heart of the case against Obama and Clapper. GABBARD: Russia had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election. On December 5th — CNN ANCHOR: You’ve been listening there to Director of National Intellignece Tulsi Gabbard continuing on what has been a multi-day effort not only with public statements like this but releasing documents to attempt to back up the quite extreme allegation that President Obama… STINCHFIELD: They cut away from her explaining it. Now, wonder you have uninformed Democrats. They’re uninformed because they’re watching CNN, MSNBC or not watching anything that don’t believe all this. I want to bring in with me now founder of the international consulting firm SMI Group. He’s an attorney who just wrote about this for Real Clear Politics [editor’s note: American Mind]. Kenin Spivak is with us. Kenin, it’s great to have you back on the program. KENIN SPIVAK, REAL CLEAR POLITICS: Great. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. So what do you think needs to come of all of this? SPIVAK: Well, I think we have to look at this in three parts. What was done and was it bad? Was it criminal behavior and is it prosecutable criminal behavior? I think Tulsi Gabbard has established, and by the way, I want to give a lot of credit to John Radcliffe, who’s the director of the CIA, who a few months ago ordered a review of this intelligence community assessment that was trumped up by Obama. Between the work they’ve both done, we are really quite positive that the intelligence community throughout 2016 was saying that there was a Russian effort to influence the campaign. But they were not saying, let me stress this, they were not saying that it was to elect Donald Trump. There were some reports that the Russians were favoring Trump. There were many reports that the Russians were favoring Hillary Clinton. The only thing the intelligence community agreed on is that the Russians were trying to destabilize the election. And so when some Democrats now point to the Rubio committee in the Senate that analyzed this, all they found was that the Russians were trying to destabilize the election, not to elect Donald Trump as president. So the first thing we know is that there was no agreement in the intelligence community. And then on December 9th, 2016, Obama assembled the National Security Council and instructed them within one week to issue an intelligence community assessment that falsely concluded that the purpose of the Russian influence was to elect Donald Trump president. And that was done to destabilize the Trump administration. And that was done chiefly by John Brennan, who was then the director of the CIA, by James Clapper, who was then the National Intelligence Director, and with the very active assistance of James Comey and Andrew McCabe from the FBI. Those are facts. We know that happened. STINCHFIELD: Kennen, let me throw a name out there that is not talked about very often. But Gina Haspel is a longtime CIA operative. In fact, she was head of the CIA under President Trump the first time around for a couple of years. She was the CIA bureau chief in London. She was the top CIA analyst in London, the top dog in London, where, of course, the dossier came from that Hillary Clinton paid for. The Steele dossier comes out of England and is used in everything you said to set up President Trump. She then gets appointed as the CIA director. Is she responsible for covering up much of this? It’s almost as if they most likely had one of their own insiders running the CIA while President Trump was in office. SPIVAK: I don’t know if I’d say she’s responsible for the cover-up. That’s John Brennan, Comey, and McCabe, but she certainly had a role in it. It’s very important to understand that when this assessment was being written in just one week, Christmas week, by the way, and written in large part by Brennan himself, while it was being written, CIA analysts opposed reliance on the Steele dossier. They said that it did not meet the minimum requirements to be relied on for tradecraft. Brennan overruled them, and the FBI, under Comey and McCabe, refused to participate in this intelligence community assessment unless the Steele dossier was quoted. Now, the Steele dossier is a fraud. We all know it’s a fraud. It was paid for by Hillary Clinton through her law firm, Perkins Coie, with this sort of British spy. We know the FBI knew it was a fraud. We know the CIA knew it was a fraud. Therefore, yes, we know that Gina Haspel knew it was a fraud, even as she became CIA director and said nothing about it. STINCHFIELD: That’s the biggest problem, that there were so many people. I believe they’re guilty in just their silence in all of this. So in the end, real quick, if you can for me, what is the prospect that we get accountability in this, that someone is charged? I doubt Barack Obama’s going to get charged with anything or get convicted or end up behind bars. I wish it was true, but I doubt that’s going to happen. As for the others, who knows? I don’t have a lot of faith that it’ll happen. Where do you stand, if you can, real quick? SPIVAK: Obama’s probably not guilty of anything to begin with, but even if he is, he has immunity, the same immunity that Donald Trump has, and the statute of limitations has expired. There’s no possibility of Barack Obama being criminally convicted of anything. Most of the other people we’ve talked about, their wrongdoing occurred more than five years ago. They’re saved by the statute of limitations. One major exception, John Brennan, he testified in Congress in 2023. In my opinion, he lied. In my opinion, he committed perjury. We can go after him for perjury. Some of the other people involved, same thing. More recent testimony, we may be able to go after them. The only possibility for going after the original wrongdoing and the entire group is something I don’t see happening. If the Department of Justice can establish a continuing conspiracy that included the false testimony in Congress in 2023, they may be able to extend forward the statute of limitations. I think what I just described is not going to happen. STINCHFIELD: Yeah. Treason is aiding and abetting the enemy, basically. I believe what they did is treasonous, but that’s going to be a tall order as well, calling this a continuing conspiracy. I believe that’s 100% true. Getting a court to buy into that, knowing the courts these days may be a tall order, but we shall see. Ken Smithack, it’s great to talk to you. Thank you. I urge people to read your piece in Real Clear Politics [editor’s note: American Mind], and we’ll see you soon, I hope. Great. Thank you.


RealClearPolitics Videos