TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Attorney General Garland was questioned about overruling FBI agents in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He stated he approved the decision but did not make it. The senator cited a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents were against the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland deflected the accusations, questioning the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired. Translation: Attorney General Garland was questioned about his involvement in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He approved the decision but did not make it. The senator referenced a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents opposed the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland questioned the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

"Did president Obama ordered any kind of surveillance of the president? Well elect." "We don't know we don't know who sent the taskings, if the taskings were changed into what went into these intelligence reports, but we're gonna try to find that out." "And I thought it was important for the president to know this." "That's why I briefed the speaker this morning, and I came down here, as soon as I could." "I think the president is is concerned, and he and he should be." "He'd like to see these reports." "Hopefully, when we get them, hopefully, they'll get them to the White House also."

The American people wanna know what happened on Epstein Island. "I'm not gonna drop this topic." You've subpoenaed Bill Clinton. He's gonna fight you tooth and nail, with the best lawyers in the country. Do you think Bill Clinton ever actually testifies? This is a bipartisan, congressionally approved subpoena, and I think that will hold a lot of weight in court. America wants to know what went on at Epstein Island. The Oversight Committee is going back to the earliest days of Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with the Justice Department, including Acosta, who said, I was told to go easy on him because he's intel. They're going back to Mueller as FBI director. Hillary Clinton is on the list—what does she have to do with Epstein? Flight logs. This is extremely broad: everything the DOJ has except the names of the victims. How did he die? The MAGA base has been vocal; they want to know answers.

Director Ray, do you want to reauthorize FISA to spy on the Trump campaign again?

The speaker states that they have not interfered with the Hunter Biden investigation, and there has been no political interference. They cannot comment on whether Joe Biden is being investigated or if the Department of Justice (DOJ) said he is off-limits. The speaker refers to the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Weiss and mentions a long-standing policy. They emphasize the FBI's responsibility to remain non-partisan and deny opening an investigation into the attorney general. The speaker avoids discussing whether the FBI tipped off Hunter Biden's lawyer before executing a search warrant on a storage unit. They conclude by stating that the FBI is not accountable to Congress or the American people.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

Senator Hawley questions Mr. Abadi about the existence of a document that alleges the President has received bribes from a foreign nation. Initially, the FBI director denied its existence, but later acknowledged it after Senator Grassley mentioned reading it. Senator Hawley asks why the document is not being released and if it is classified. Mr. Abadi confirms that the document is unclassified but does not commit to releasing it. Senator Hawley insists that the American people have the right to see it, suggesting that the source's name can be redacted.

According to Speaker 1, the DOJ investigation should target President Obama, who "started it." Biden, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan were also present. Speaker 1 claims "those papers" show Obama is guilty of treason and trying to steal and obfuscate the election. Speaker 1 states that Obama is shielded by the press and that what "they" did is unimaginable, even compared to "rough countries."

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

The speaker questions why the FBI paid Christopher Steele $1 million to verify a dossier on Trump and offered $3 million to Twitter to suppress a story on Hunter Biden. They express concern over the FBI's actions being politically motivated. The FBI director responds by explaining the payments to social media companies are for legal process costs. The speaker accuses the FBI of damaging its reputation and questions if the FBI requested financial institutions to provide customer data. The FBI director is unsure and the speaker presents an email from Bank of America as evidence.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to have no knowledge or interest in the issue, stating that it has never been raised to him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals potentially involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the question and thanks Fox News for their time. Speaker 0 persists in asking if Senator Durbin will take action, but the conversation abruptly ends with Speaker 1 calling Durbin a liar.

The speaker asks about a House Oversight Committee subpoena regarding an FBI document from 2020. The document allegedly describes a criminal scheme involving then Vice President Biden and a foreign national exchanging money for policy decisions. The speaker asks for the White House's response, but they refer to the Justice Department and have no information. The speaker also asks about the country and policy decision, but the response remains the same.

Speaker 0 asks if Joe Biden received payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies while he was vice president, president, or a private citizen. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing investigation led by the US attorney in Delaware, appointed by President Trump. Speaker 1 suggests referring to the US attorney for any information that can be shared. Speaker 0 then asks if the president is under investigation, to which Speaker 1 refuses to confirm or deny, following department policy. The conversation ends without a clear answer regarding Biden's involvement with foreign payments or the president's investigation.

The speaker states that the FBI settled two lawsuits, agreeing to give Peter Strzok $1,200,000 and Lisa Page $800,000. The other speaker believes the Department of Justice was involved, not the FBI, but will confirm if the FBI had to sign off on the settlement. The speaker references Lisa Page saying to Peter Strzok, "Trump's not ever going to become president," to which Strzok replied, "No. He won't. We will stop it." The speaker wants to know if the FBI signed off on the settlement and who signed off on it. The speaker asks if the other speaker or Chris Ray signed off on it. The speaker states that Merrick Garland must have agreed to the settlement. The other speaker will direct the Department of Justice to answer these questions.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

Speaker 1 questions why House Republicans haven't released Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book, which is under the FBI director's control, to expose alleged pedophiles. When asked if he would declassify the Epstein files, Speaker 1 says he would, but expresses concern about potentially affecting people's lives if the information is phony. Speaker 0 says the issue is bigger than Epstein, 9/11, JFK, or RFK, and asks who is on the Epstein tapes and in the black books, questioning why this information has been hidden. Speaker 3 mentions Donald Trump has discussed the DOJ potentially releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Speaker 2 claims that the release is under review, following a directive by President Trump, stating that everything will come out to the public because Americans have a right to know.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to know nothing about the issue and says it has never been raised with him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals who may be involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the topic, stating it's the first time anyone has brought it up. Speaker 0 asks if Senator Durbin is interested in pursuing the matter, but there is no clear response.

Senator Chuck Grassley alleged on the Senate floor that there are 17 recordings of an informant from Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company. He claimed that 15 of these recordings are of the informant talking to Hunter Biden, while 2 are of him talking to Joe Biden. When questioned, the FBI representative refused to comment on the recordings. Senator Grassley accused the FBI of damaging the institution by not disclosing whether there is credible evidence of the president taking a $5,000,000 bribe. He also criticized the lack of hearings on these allegations and accused the FBI of stonewalling. The FBI representative maintained that they are operating within their parameters and denied stonewalling. Senator Grassley concluded by stating that the FBI believes it is unaccountable to Congress and the American people.

A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.

Speaker 0: By a member of the Ukrainian parliament. Let's talk about the tape recording evidence. Speaker 1: We don't know. Yeah. We don't know much about it because it's floating around Ukraine, but we do know the general prosecutor of Ukraine, our equivalent of the attorney general, came on our show this morning and said the following. There's enough evidence for me to open up a criminal investigation into the illicit effort by a Ukrainian to try to influence the United States election in favor of Hillary Clinton. That's a profound statement coming from the top law enforcement official of Ukraine. Why is it important? There's a court in Ukraine that's already concluded that, Ukrainian officials leaked Paul Manafort's financial records to try to sway the US election. You haven't heard anything about that in the American press, but that ruling occurred recently. Then a parliamentary member comes out and says, I have a tape of these law enforcement officials saying they did it specifically to help Hillary Clinton. That becomes the foundation of the Ukrainian investigation. Speaker 0: You have talked to people that have heard this tape. Correct? Speaker 1: Well, the, the prosecutor himself has heard the tape and said it was important enough, good enough evidence to warrant opening the investigation. So the tape, the court ruling, the top prosecutor in Ukraine says there was a foreign power Speaker 0: Two separate issues here. Number one Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Did Ukrainian officials offered us evidence that, in fact, they were involved in election interference in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton's campaign? But why didn't anybody in in the media pursue the interference story? And I thought they cared about interference, but, obviously, only if it's Russian interference and Trump because we know they don't care about the dirty Russian dossier. Speaker 1: That's right. Keep in mind that just a few months ago, Sean, we reported on your on your show and inside the hill that Ukraine's embassy in Washington confirmed on the record that back in 2016, the Democratic National Committee trying to help Hillary Clinton get elected asked the Ukraine Embassy to help interfere in the election by doing two things, dig up dirt on Paul Manafort and have Ukraine's president make a kerfuffle here in Washington about Manafort and Trump when he came to visit. Now the Ukrainians say they they rebuffed that attempt, but Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC, made that request according to the, Ukraine embassy in

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.