Transcript
A (0:00)
Thank you for listening to this Podcast 1 production now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast 1, Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody. Today on the Charlie Kirk show, we go through Russiagate 2.0, the new story that they're trying to take down Trump with, which has no facts and is blowing up in the left's faces in real time. And we also talk about the tragedy of Chaz, how innocent life has been lost because the police were not able to do their job. Email me your questions. Freedom charliekirk.com freedomarliekirk.com for your monthly supporters that support us on charliekirk.com support that allow us to tell the truth confidently and clearly without threats of boycotts or attacks from the left. Thank you. And for the monthly donors, we do a special once a month. We're gonna do our first one in mid July. So charliekirk.com support please consider becoming a monthly donor or a single contributor helps cover our costs of our podc doing almost 12 to 14 podcasts a week. And we have some even coming up over Independence Day weekend that I know you're really going to enjoy. Email me your questions freedomarliekirk.com freedom charliekirk.com, get involved with turningpointusatpusa.com you guys are going to love this episode. And also make sure you listen to our sister episode with Governor Kristi Noem from South Dakota. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy, his spirit, his
B (1:36)
love of this country.
A (1:37)
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Russiagate 2.0. Now, mind you, I saw this story we're about to unpack for you, come across for a couple days. I just, I rolled my eyes. I said, the New York Times is this cavalier about another Russia scandal. I'm gonna let all the facts come out before I engage in it. And so now we have to share with you how things are today. You probably saw this story somewhere because the Biden campaign and the entire Democrat power structure, they were trying to push forth. This entire bombshell story allegedly was on June 26th. The New York Times published it that the Russian government was instituting a bounty program in which Putin would pay Afghan soldiers for killing United States troops. Now, if true, it's like that old expression, big if true, if true, this is a massive story. And so the story read this. American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan, including targeting American troops amid the peace talks to end the long running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter. Now, if you read that really carefully, if you have a trained eye, you realize there's no named source here. American intelligence officials have concluded, and you go through this entire quote, no named source at all whatsoever, we have to be immediately skeptical of any story's veracity or its likelihood to be true when they don't name a source. America has been burned so many times by unnamed sources where they say we have a bombshell coming and they almost always turn out to be duds. I mean, think about Russia collusion, think about Donald Trump's going to declare war on Iran, North Korea, you go so on and so forth. The article continued by saying the officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or if they met with Taliban counterparts elsewhere. So obviously, if the reports are verified and Russia is indeed engaged in this behavior, it rivals one of the worst Cold War aggressions and it should be responded to with force. However, we don't know if it's true. It's leaked, unverified, incomplete, and, and sounds like it's cherry picked intelligence. And the timing of the release is very suspicious. In fact, I would say it's highly partisan. In fact, it read as if it was an attempt to hurt President Trump more than actually trying to hold Russia accountable for what they were allegedly doing with the Taliban. Now, mind you, this is Russiagate 2.0, and that's if you're not counting the Ukrainian hoax. And if you did, then it would actually be Russiagate 3.0. Now, Republican Congressman Chris Stewart brought up a very good point, a fascinating point indeed that no one is talking about. He said, quote, this is something that goes back a long time ago. This isn't just something that popped up in the last few weeks or the last few months. Some of this intelligence actually goes back a couple years ago and that, quote, Nancy Pelosi had this presented to her as well in much the same format. So did Adam Schiff. All of US did. So why didn't they act on it or raise the question when they first received this intelligence? Adam Schiff had this in February. Well, he probably didn't act on it because he was too busy impeaching the President of the United States in February. But why did he not consider this to be important? Nevertheless, the same Democrats who are so hell bent on backing Trump into a corner over this old question of what did he know and when did he know it, they have never been asked that same question, why they didn't take this seriously. And in this case, if President Trump did know about this, depending on whether he was briefed about it, why didn't he respond? We know President Trump's worldview. We know what drives him. If he was briefed on this, he would have been repulsed by this. This not so subtle insinuation by Democrats, by the way, is that if Trump somehow knew this and he threw it away into the shredder and let United States soldiers die, all because of this, because he was going to please Vladimir Putin is reprehensible, steaming garbage. Now, pause for a second to think of how ridiculous that sounds. The notion that President Trump would simply receive this kind of intelligence and be told by top agencies like the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence, and that it's completely credible, verifiable, complete, and there's nothing wrong with it, and then not do something about it goes against everything we know about President Trump. Unless you think that President Trump is completely awful, of which every one of these accusers believe. The White House has come out and they said that President Trump was not orally briefed. And oral briefings are typically reserved for the highest priority intel. He was given the briefing materials on the supposed bounty scheme. It's possible that he didn't read it, or it's also possible that he did read it, and again, it didn't rise to the level of escalating action, or it's probably even more probable that it was alleged or a suspicion. I mean, this is a very big deal. And why would Vladimir Putin do this? Nothing in Vladimir Putin's posturing is that he wants a further armed conflict with the United States. It's just not. Now, I'm not one of those people that thinks Russia is a wonderful country. I think that Russia is actually generally a malevolent force across the world. I just don't think they're that serious of a threat compared to China. I just don't. I think Russia is a bad actor. I don't think we should go to War with Russia. I think that we should partner with Russia on certain things when we can. But generally I think that Vladimir Putin is a force for evil across the world. I don't have nice things to say about Vladimir Putin. With that being said, I don't think it's logical that Vladimir Putin would put a bounty on United States soldiers heads because he knows how that would be responded to. It'd be responded to with force. He knows that President Trump, who's already being accused of being soft on Russia, would overcompensate on it. And by the way, President Trump has been historically tough on Russia. That's right. President Trump has been tougher on Russia than even President Obama was. Remember, President Obama famously said to Dmitri Mendyev that he'll have more flexibility after the election. Play tape. My last election. After my election, I am more flexible. President Trump armed the Ukrainian rebels. We went through an entire impeachment hoax around that. President Trump twice authorized military airstrikes in Syria against Russian wishes. President Trump armed the opposition to the Russian backed forces in Syria. President Trump authorized record amount of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its proxies and some of its just say holding companies across the world. President Trump also expelled a record amount of Russian diplomats from the United States. And President Trump not just armed the Ukrainian government, but he gave them very sophisticated weaponry that even President Obama did not authorize and President Obama did not approve. So this idea that President Trump has been weak on Russia is completely unfounded. Now again, I have a very, I think, nuanced position on Russia. I do not have the view of some Republican senators that want to see us do military exercises outside of St. Petersburg and get ready for the next invasion of the Russian Federation where they just have, they're just looking for the next war for us to engage in. In fact, I think that a, let's just say vanilla relationship with Russia, where we treat them as not a friend, not as our greatest enemy, but probably as an adversary, we have some form of sanctions on them and just more of an annoyance than anything else. I think that's a perfectly respectable posture with Russia. With China completely different. In fact, I think Russia could be a very helpful partner in restricting China because Russia is also very worried about the rise of China. And you see Russia partnering with China because they see nothing but hostility coming out of the United States. And by the way, even Lindsey Graham, who's never found a war that he does not want to send American troops to go fight and never found a piece of turf that he does not Want to send an American missile to try to carpet bomb. He's even saying that this is a complete and total hoax. He said this. He tweeted out this. The President was not briefed as there appear to be contradictory analysis of the threat streams gathered by intelligence community, with the most reliable form of intelligence gathering being emphasized. The Russians have been involved in Afghanistan dating back to the previous administration and would prefer the United States leave, thus filling the vacuum. I completely understand why action against Russia based solely on this intelligence would be unjustified. Lindsey Graham finished by saying this, putting the ball in the Democrats court. He said to the Democrats who want to be hard on Russia, put forward your ideas. I would gladly look at them apart from this incident as I have long had major issues with Putin's Russia. I'm sure Lindsey Graham would love to have an excuse to go declare a conflict with Russia. Now, I like Lindsey with a lot of things. I actually am very friendly with Senator Graham when I see him and, you know, when we spend time together. I just completely and categorically disagree with his foreign policy view, which is that there's never been a bad invasion that the United States has engaged in and more missiles the better. Not exactly my view of a harmonious foreign policy worldview. Let's put it that way. I think the Iraq war is a mistake. I think the way that we fought the Afghan war was a mistake. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, quote, There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations. And in fact, there are dissenting opinions from within the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what's being reported, the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated. And in a very rare occurrence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, Gina Haspel, spoke out on the record in an official statement which read, when developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation. In general, preliminary force protection information is shared throughout the national security community and with US Allies as part of an ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of coalition forces overseas. Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess and ascribe culpability. Now, I'm going to finish with Gina Haspel's statement, but what she's saying is that this was a leak. Why don't we have people going to prison who are leaking classified information? Now, mind you, Gina Haspel had to release this statement. Lindsey Graham had to look into this. Look at all the wasted energy and focus that had to be spent on this unverified, salacious story. It sounds like the Russian dossier. It sounds like the Steele dossier, I should say. So now Gina Haspel has to go through all these ridiculous calisthenics to try to convince the American people that the New York Times is way ahead of themselves. And the New York Times has now created a massive misdirection effort where now for a week straight, this has been one of the top stories in the leftist media. Now, you may or may not have become aware of this story, but in DC circles, this is considered to be a big deal right now. I know for those of you that are out of work or have a brother addicted to opioids or worried if you have to wear a mask under threat of arrest or your church isn't opening, I know the idea of an unverified story from the New York Times seems inconsequential to you. However, here on the Charlie Kirk show, we have to debunk these stories because as they get so big, if you allow a lie to spread without confronting, defeating and destroying it, then you are culpable in the spread of that lie. And so when a lie gets this big, we have to do this and we have to analyze it. So Gina Haspel continued by saying hostile states use of proxies in war zones to inflict damage on the United States interests and troops is a constant long standing concern. This Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, will continue to pursue every single lead, analyze the information we collect with critical, objective eyes, and brief reliable intelligence to protect US Forces deployed around the world. So what do we know? At least at face value, this looks like another intentional leak of incomplete classified intelligence from an unverified source designed to hurt Trump, designed to hurt the President, United States. The idea that Russia would do this after the bottleneck the Trump administration has say put on the Russian Federation, I just don't think this is logical in any sense at all whatsoever. But look, let's say that it wasn't surprising. This doesn't change the fact that the proper channels were followed when it came to the President's daily intel briefings and that this singular piece of intelligence did not rise to the level of presidential action. That's the whole story. And any dishonest statement from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Congressman Adam Schiff, CNN, or whatever else is just complete and total propaganda misinformation. It's designed for the sole purpose to take down President Trump. Look, I want to tell you guys about pcmatic. PCMATIC is a whitelist next generation antivirus system designed to stop modern threats like ransomware independent testing. The AB test just named pcmatic as a top performer in the cybersecurity industry, giving it the best performance award for 2019. Only PCMATIC has American research, development and support. PCMATIC's competition is made in foreign countries like China. Many where the viruses originate buy American support our country don't buy antivirus systems that are made in China. PCMATIC protects Windows computers including XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8 and 10 Windows servers, Macs, MacBooks and Android phones and tablets. Again, PCMATIC's competition is made in foreign countries, many where the viruses originate. PCMATIC is $50 for five devices for one year with a full 30 day money back guarantee. And if you act now, PCMATIC has offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of an annual license. To access this offer, go to pcmatic.com charlie again to get world class security that keeps your computers running great. Go to pcmatic.comcharlie. and it's kind of an addition to the story here, the President's ongoing effort to remove troops from endless wars, something we've been talking about from the beginning of the show. And it's kind of an addition to this story. It's tangential and it harmonizes nicely what we're talking about. The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday to put roadblocks on President Trump's ability to withdraw from Afghanistan, including require. I'm laughing because I mean, Democrats have always run as anti war people and finally President Trump wants to end a war and the Democrats just don't want any part of that. The National Defense Authorization act amendment from Rep. Jason Crow from Colorado would require several certifications where the United States can further draw down in Afghanistan. The Amendment was approved 45 to 11. But let me be perfectly clear with all you guys. I think the United States should fully withdraw from Afghanistan. I'm a conservative, which means I love my country, I love America more than I love Afghanistan. And I do not think it is critical to US national security for us to be perpetually occupying a country that's thousands of miles away while we're $26 trillion in debt, while we have 15 schools in inner city Baltimore where kids simply cannot read, where we have incredible structural problems, 25 million people out of work, it's probably actually closer to 20 million people now. I don't see any reason why we should be endlessly in now. I am not a foreign policy dove. I'm not someone who is unwilling to use US Force against our enemies. What I am unwilling to do is have the endless and Perpetual occupation of US Forces overseas when there is no clear victory or objective in sight. In a previous episode of the Charlie Kirk show, we had Senator Rand Paul where he talked about some of the waste and the abuse in Afghanistan. I've played this sound for you before, but we've had so many new subscribers on our show since this interview happened just over a year ago. I want to just play a short clip of Senator Rand Paul and I having a conversation. This is actually from our Turning Point USA Teenage Student Action Summit last year. These stories are incredible. Let's listen in. There is an example in Afghanistan, and you know these details better than anyone else. I remember you mentioning this. We spent something like $90 million on a hotel across the street from our Embassy that has 7,000 people in it. The hotel's not finished. The shell of a hotel. And someone ran with the money to Jordan or something. They fled.
