reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We now know without a doubt that Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey were attacking our democracy, all while accusing us of attacking democracy. We know these things because director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released hundreds of documents revealing that the mindful objections of senior intel officials were ignored. Foreign spies were given a US government endorsed platform to smear Trump with abject lies. They used these lies to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. Former CIA director John Brennan lied to congress about his role. The cover up effort was real. Now that director Gabbard has revealed the truth, where will it all lead?

In December 2016, talking points prepared for James Clapper stated that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks to alter the 2016 presidential election outcome and there was no evidence of cyber manipulation intended to alter the results. A presidential daily brief draft stated Russia did not impact the election results. However, the draft's release was stopped based on "new guidance," not new information. On December 9, 2016, Obama's national security team, including Obama, Biden, and other officials, met, and Obama directed the intelligence community to assess Russia's tools and actions to influence the election and explain why Moscow directed these activities and how their approach changed. That same day, The Washington Post published a story claiming a secret CIA assessment said Russia was trying to help Trump win. The speaker claims that every assessment up until that day claimed all of this was bogus. The speaker concludes that this was the start of a mass conspiracy.

Speaker 0: Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of conclusion was taking place. Speaker 0: That doesn't help us a lot. What was the nature of the information? Speaker 1: As I said, mister Gowdy, I think this committee now has access to the type of information that I'm alluding to here. It's classified and I'm happy to talk about it in classified session. Speaker 0: And that would have been directly between the candidate and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: That's not what I said. I'm not going to talk about any individual's But Speaker 0: that was my question.

According to Fox News, declassified documents reveal Barack Obama knew the Russia investigation was a hoax but promoted it to undermine Donald Trump's presidency. DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents showing Obama's intelligence officials briefed him weeks after the 2016 election that Russian and criminal actors did not impact the election results, nor did criminal activity reach the scale to change election outcomes. The report claims Obama and his staff directed intelligence agencies to create new reports supporting Russia collusion. An email allegedly shows Clapper's assistant tasked intelligence leaders with creating an intelligence assessment detailing Moscow's tools and actions to influence the 2016 election, per the president's request. Gabbard described this as a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people, calling for prosecution and making a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. The report concludes that Hillary Clinton created the dossier, and Obama directed the alleged scheme.

The FBI requested access to DNC servers and John Podesta's devices for forensics, but were denied. A private company eventually provided information to the FBI. Multiple requests were made for access, but the private company ended up sharing their findings with the FBI.

According to Fox News, declassified documents reveal that Barack Obama knew the Russia investigation was a hoax but promoted it to undermine Donald Trump's presidency. DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents showing Obama's intelligence officials briefed him weeks after the 2016 election that Russian and criminal actors did not impact the election results, nor did criminal activity reach the scale to change election outcomes. The report claims Obama and his staff directed intelligence agencies to create new reports supporting Russia collusion. An email allegedly shows Clapper's assistant tasking intelligence leaders to create an assessment detailing Moscow's tools and actions to influence the election, per the president's request. Gabbard described this as a conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people, calling for prosecution and making a criminal referral to the DOJ. The report concludes that Hillary Clinton created the dossier, and Obama was calling the shots.

According to declassified information, former CIA Director John Brennan is in trouble and may be indicted. A report from the House Select Committee on Intelligence alleges that Brennan knowingly published three reports containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible. While Brennan is entitled to due process, this evidence may be presented to a grand jury. James Comey's situation is less clear, suggesting Brennan faces the most significant exposure.

Michael Flynn, a former DIA head and Trump national security advisor, was an intelligence community surveillance target, as was staffer George Papadopoulos. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a report clearing Trump of colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. Sources close to the committee, led by Adam Schiff, continued working covertly in Langley. They had access to raw logs and communications from agencies like the CIA and the National Security Council.

The transcript reports that Tulsi Gabbard released a House Intel report alleging a conspiracy by President Obama and U.S. intelligence agencies to undermine the 2016 election and Donald Trump. It claims Obama ordered a new intelligence community assessment on Russia’s interference, handpicking five CIA analysts to draft a rushed, siloed report with only one person in charge. The four elements cited as the basis of the Russia hoax are: Putin wanted Trump to win; Putin took action to help Trump win; the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. It asserts there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations, senior CIA officials refused to traffic in them, but were overruled by Brennan and Comey, who allegedly cherry-picked, misquoted, and suppressed countervailing intelligence, including anonymous postings. The document alleges Obama continued promoting the hoax, mentions potential criminal implications, and states the Steele dossier was not used by the CIA. It ends with accountability rhetoric.

In the summer of 2016, our government received intelligence suggesting that Secretary Clinton had approved a plan to link President Trump to Russia. Director Brennan briefed the President, Vice President, Attorney General, and FBI Director on this important intelligence, which was then put into a referral memorandum. Director Comey and Agent Strzok received this memorandum, but it was not shared with the FISA court, the lawyers preparing the FISA application, or the agents working on the Crossfire Hurricane case. When the referral memo was shown to one of the agents, he had never seen it before and became upset because it was important information that had been kept from him.

News alert discusses Tulsi Gabbard releasing a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and U.S. intel agencies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2016 election. The report claims there is irrefutable evidence that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. Gabbard says she obtained a House Intelligence Committee report that had been locked away in a CIA vault for nearly a decade, and investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. The assertion is that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to imply Putin and Trump colluded to steal the election, with a highly unusual, rush-developed assessment produced a month after Trump’s victory. John Brennan allegedly handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, who were siloed and not aware of each other’s work, with only one analyst in charge of drafting. The process was described as a rush job with no coordination with other intelligence agencies, essentially “home cooking” for Obama. The four key elements repeated in the assessment, forming the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation, are: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took actions to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The claim is that none of these were true, and there was no reliable intelligence to support them. Senior CIA officials allegedly refused to propagate these allegations, but were overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who pressed for them despite lacking verifiable evidence. The report alleges the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed counter-evidence, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA personnel allegedly admitted that these actions violated tradecraft standards, with a pressure campaign emanating from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. Speaker 1 asserts that Donald Trump knows Russia helped him win in 2016. Speaker 2 suggests Putin’s preference for Trump came from his dislike of Hillary Clinton, who was running, while Speaker 3 states Russia sought to interfere systematically to advance Trump’s prospects. The conversation notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to aid Trump, yet the report contends Russians aimed to create chaos and undermine faith in democracy, with solid intelligence indicating Putin had no clear preference between Clinton and Trump but had dirt on Clinton that was not released. The discussion questions why the dirt from the DNC emails and claims about Clinton’s health, including tranquilizers, were not leaked to aid Trump, and whether the information about Clinton’s health is credible. The panel suggests that if Russia sought to influence the election, more damning information would have been released. The speakers claim Obama and top intelligence leaders mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to craft a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump. They contend Obama continued pushing the hoax after the election, describing it as undermining democracy. Towards the end, there is mention of potential criminal implications, with references to referrals to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation, including possible liability for Obama. A tester voices that Brennan may have committed perjury before Congress. A final note asserts that the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier for the intelligence community assessment, countering a claim made in the discussion. The segment closes with a call for accountability.

The speaker believes the Russian hack of the DNC contributed to an atmosphere focused on Hillary Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation, overshadowing policy debates and impacting the election. The speaker states that the CIA assessment that the hack was intended to improve Trump's chances shouldn't be surprising, as it was widely understood that the hack was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Clinton campaign. While the president-elect has expressed admiration for Putin and a desire for cooperation, the speaker emphasizes that the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Russian government was behind the DNC hack. The speaker notes that various agencies are still assessing the motivations behind the hack. The speaker highlights that the current information is based on CIA leaks, not an official document, and that agencies are still comparing notes. The speaker requested a report be issued before the 20th, so that unclassified aspects can be presented to the public and Congress.

The speakers discuss new information from the DNI's office and the Trump administration regarding the origins of Russiagate, including that the president-elect was blocked from accessing the original report. One speaker believes that Tulsi Gabbard's declassification and CIA director John Ratcliffe's assessment reveal that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election in a way that influenced the outcome. They claim Barack Obama and senior officials like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to alter intelligence to delegitimize Trump. The speaker calls for a bicameral commission with prime-time hearings to investigate the matter, subpoenaing Brennan, Clapper, and others to testify under oath. They mention referrals to the Justice Department related to Brennan and suggest further referrals from Gabbard's findings. The speaker advocates for a joint bipartisan congressional investigation into figures like Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Biden, and Comey.

One participant observes that the matter is sophisticated and implies a coordinated effort beyond a single email, noting that it involves a multi-hundred-million-dollar transaction processed through complex steps and asking how the money can be traced. The other participant explains what is known: the NSA identified senior Ukrainian government officials who were having the conversation and reportedly have some of their emails. The intercepts do not name USAID workers directly; they only mention that they are “working for USAID in Kev.” Because of that, tracing who was in contact with those officials about a clean energy grant during a war with Russia should be possible by narrowing down who was connected to those USAID-related emails. They indicate progress has been made since the story was published the previous week, suggesting early movement in identifying the involved parties. They describe the NSA intercepts as a summary of intercepts noting that the operation was designed to be so complicated that it would be hard to figure out after the fact, with money laundered multiple times until it was eventually diverted and sent to the DNC and Joe Biden. At the time this was happening, a famous person was leading USAID: Samantha Power, who is described as very close to Obama, Clinton, and Biden. The statement emphasizes that, while this does not imply involvement, it suggests examining USAID from the top down to determine who knew what and when. In summary, the discussion frames the situation as a highly sophisticated, large-scale financial operation with a chain of communication involving senior Ukrainian officials and USAID personnel. The NSA’s intercepts point to a deliberate design to obscure the trail, with potential implications involving political figures connected to USAID’s leadership. The speakers highlight ongoing progress in identifying who was in touch with the Ukrainian officials and stress the importance of tracing the funding flow, including hints about laundering patterns and the ultimate destination of funds.

Speaker 0: Well, I'm I'm not suggesting cooperation at all. Keep in mind that those statements were in the context of everyone now acting surprised by the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to, improve Trump's chances. And my only point was that shouldn't be treated as a blockbuster because that was the worst kept secret in this town. Everybody understood that. It was reported on. Steve, if you go back and look at your stories, if you read any mainstream publication, you would see that if you have a hack of the DNC and a hack of Hillary Clinton's most senior advisors' emails, and those things are then released in drip, drip, drip fashion over the course of months. And that seem to generate consistently negative coverage despite the fact that there's nothing in there that's particularly controversial, that it's mostly just, as I said, political gossip or routine emails between folks who are working, in a campaign environment, then it it's a pretty clear inference that people would draw and did draw that this was helping the Trump campaign and it was hurting the the Hillary campaign. That doesn't mean that the Trump campaign was coordinating. It just means that they understood what everybody else understood, which was that this was not good for Hillary Clinton's campaign. And when you combine that with the fact that the president-elect has been very honest about his admiration for Putin, and that he hopes to forge a more cooperative relationship with him and focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism, then my only point was we shouldn't now suddenly act as if this is a huge revelation. In October, we said, after being very careful about it because we had no interest in appearing as if we were putting our thumbs on the scales, we did what was almost unprecedented, which was every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians had hacked, the DNC, and the information was that was now being released, was as a consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels. So what the CIA is now assessing, which was it was done purposefully to tilt the election in another in the direction of a particular candidate, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody and in fact isn't a surprise to anybody.

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, released new evidence alleging that former President Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The speaker asserts that while Obama publicly appeared to support a peaceful transfer of power, privately he took steps to sow discord and sabotage Trump, including manufacturing and politicizing intelligence that was used to justify baseless smears against the new president. The claim is that Trump had no involvement with Russia and that the Russia collusion narrative was a massive fraud, known to Obama and others involved, including former CIA director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and others. The speaker reiterates that DNI Gabbard’s report confirms there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, attributing any wrongdoing to Barack Obama and the “weaponized” intelligence agencies of the time. The Russia hoax is characterized as a blatant lie manufactured by Democrat political operatives, approved by Obama, and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump in his first administration. Allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some personally harmed by the false narrative. The speaker notes that much of this occurred during Trump’s first two years in office, consuming vast resources, time, and political capital to debunk the allegations at the highest levels of government. According to the speaker, nearly a decade later, declassification of documents by DNI Gabbard, alongside contributions from CIA Director Ratcliffe and committee Chairman Rick Crawford, supports a newly declassified 2020 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This report reportedly found the intel community did not have direct information that Vladimir Putin sought to help elect Trump in 2016; instead, Russia was allegedly preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory. The narrative claims that, at the time, Obama’s unusual stance led the intel community to publish implausible intelligence to sabotage the incoming president. The speaker asserts this constitutes one of the greatest political scandals in American history, noting that legacy media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post were rewarded with Pulitzer Prizes for propagating political disinformation. The claim is made that those awards should be stripped from journalists who disseminated out-of-context and false intelligence to push a political narrative in service of the Democrats and associated intelligence actors.

There had been contacts between members of mister Trump's staff and Russian officials, and Trump benefited from the hacks. The spokesman said: “It's obvious, that Trump knew what was going on” and that he was “not suggesting cooperation at all.” Context was the CIA assessment that the hacks were done “to tilt the election” toward a candidate. The discussion noted that DNC hack and “a hack of Hillary Clinton's advisors' emails” were released in “drip, drip fashion,” generating “negative” coverage and implying it helped Trump's campaign and hurt Hillary's, though it “doesn’t mean that the Trump campaign was coordinating.” The president-elect's “admiration for Putin” and desire to forge a cooperative relationship to focus on terrorism were acknowledged. In October, “every intelligence agency” agreed that “the Russians had hacked the DNC” and that the information was released “by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels,” not a surprise.

Fox News alert: Tulsi Gabbard releases a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and his intel agencies to sabotage the president-elect Donald Trump, brainwash the electorate, and undermine the legitimacy of an election. There is irrefutable evidence detailing how Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win, selling it to the American people as true. Gabbard obtained a House Intelligence Committee report locked away in a CIA vault for almost a decade. Investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials, and it shows the Obama administration doctored intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Obama wasn’t satisfied with intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. This was a highly unusual move. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed; none knew what the others were doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting the report. It was not routine, and it was rushed to publish before Trump’s inauguration. Nothing was coordinated with other intelligence agencies. Basically, this was “home cooking” for Barack Obama. Four key elements were repeated to form the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took action to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. None of this was ever true; there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations. Senior CIA officials repeatedly refused to traffic in these allegations, but were overruled by CIA director Brennan and FBI director Comey, who insisted they be pushed without verifiable evidence. The Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, lied about sources, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed intelligence counter to their narratives, and even used anonymous Internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA admitted violations of tradecraft standards; a massive pressure campaign came from the top, with unusual directives from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. This is how the Russia hoax was born. Donald Trump knows that the Russians helped him win in 2016. Putin hated Hillary Clinton, with a noted preference for the opponent he disliked least. It was Russia in a systematic effort to interfere in the election and advance Trump’s prospects. The report notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed the Russians hacked voting machines to help Trump win, but the report shows Russians sought to create chaos and undermine democracy; solid intelligence suggested Putin had no preference, and expected Hillary to win, holding compromising dirt on her that he never released. If Putin wanted Trump to win, why didn’t he drop the dirt? There were high-level DNC emails detailing Hillary’s psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and a daily regimen of tranquilizers; Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to create a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump, though Obama and intelligence leaders knew Putin did not collude with Trump and did not direct his people to help Trump win, yet they published it anyway. Obama and his intel spies purportedly cooked intelligence to look like Putin preferred Trump, undermining faith in elections and causing chaos. Do you believe this implicates Obama in criminal behavior? There is a referral of documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate criminal implications. Evidence points to Obama leading the manufacturing of the intelligence assessment. Even two years after the election, Obama pushed a hoax he knew wasn’t true. Brennan, Comey, and others may have liability. Trey Gowdy claims Brennan committed perjury for lying to Congress. When asked who commissioned the Steele dossier, responses indicate the CIA did not rely on it; it was not part of the intelligence community assessment. The broadcast concludes with the assertion that what happened to these officials is not revenge, but accountability, while noting ongoing questions about potential criminal action.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper responded to allegations that he and others fabricated an intelligence assessment to damage President Trump, calling them "patently false and unfounded." Clapper stated President Obama asked them to compile existing reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election into one document before the end of his administration, not to concoct intelligence. Clapper confirmed Russia did not electronically penetrate voting machines but mounted a sophisticated information operation to sow discord and distrust, favoring Trump over Clinton due to Putin's long-standing animus towards the Clintons. Clapper stated that John Durham's report critiqued the FBI's process for a FISA application against Carter Page, not the intelligence community assessment itself, which was endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. He dismissed a Republican-only House report as inaccurate, noting it cited Russian intelligence. Clapper expressed concern about potential prosecution, noting he already has attorneys due to ongoing scrutiny since leaving government in 2017, especially after being accused of treason by the former president.

According to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, multiple intelligence community assessments released before the November 2016 election concluded that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to impact the election's outcome. Gabbard has been making public statements and releasing documents to support her allegation that President Obama is guilty of treason and conspired with Hillary Clinton regarding the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A report alleges that President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of a false intelligence community assessment to promote the narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win. According to the report, Obama ordered the CIA to create a new assessment after Trump's victory, a highly unusual move. CIA Director Brennan allegedly handpicked analysts who were siloed and rushed to publish the assessment before Trump's inauguration. The assessment claimed that Putin wanted Trump to win, took action to help him, had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier), and that Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The report claims there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations, but Brennan and Comey pushed them anyway. It is claimed that the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, lied about sources, and suppressed counter-narrative intelligence. The report suggests that Putin didn't care who won, but had compromising information on Hillary Clinton that he never released. It is claimed that Obama and his spy chiefs knew Putin didn't prefer Trump or collude with him, but presented it otherwise. The report suggests Obama undermined faith in elections and caused chaos, doing what the enemy wanted. The documents have been referred to the DOJ and FBI to investigate potential criminal implications for Obama and others, including Brennan and Comey, who allegedly lied to Congress.

Accountability must take place regarding the Russia hoax. All documents found have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal referral. Attorney General Pam Bondi has created a strike force team focused singularly on this issue. The team will focus on accountability for those culpable or responsible. John Brennan and James Clapper, as leaders in the intelligence community, have their own disciples.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims that multiple intelligence community assessments released before the November 2016 election concluded that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to influence the election's outcome. Gabbard alleges that President Obama is guilty of treason and conspired with Hillary Clinton regarding the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. She supports this "extreme allegation" with public statements and released documents.