TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There is ample evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, with significant findings in the public domain. The president and his associates may be compromised by foreign powers, and there are persistent allegations of Russian money laundering through the Trump organization. While there is direct evidence of deception, it's important to note that there is no hard evidence of collusion at this moment. Circumstantial evidence exists, and it can be powerful. The Trump campaign welcomed Russian assistance, incorporated it into their strategy, and failed to report it, while also being deceptive about their actions. There is more than just circumstantial evidence, but specifics cannot be disclosed.

The speaker claims that top law enforcement officials expected Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election and manipulated the law to ensure her victory and Trump's defeat. He cites James Comey's alleged admission of operating in an environment where a Clinton victory was expected. The speaker discusses the alleged intrusion into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), pointing to "telltale signs in Cyrillic" and the name "Felix Dzerzhinsky" as either sloppy or overly clever attempts to implicate Russia. He alleges that the persona "Guccifer 2.0" is a fraud, based on forensic analysis of metadata by former NSA technical directors. The speaker criticizes Bob Mueller, claiming he falsified intelligence before the Iraq War and approved of torture and wiretapping. He recounts an encounter where he questioned Mueller about "parallel construction," the practice of using illegally acquired information in prosecutions without revealing its source. The speaker describes James Comey's leaking of a conversation with President Trump to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor, Bob Mueller. He questions Comey's decision not to seize the DNC computers after the alleged Russian hacking, relying instead on CrowdStrike, a firm with a "disastrous record of veracity." The speaker claims that the DNC blamed Russia for the hacking to divert attention from the content of the leaked emails. He references Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's PR person, allegedly pushing the "Russians hacked" narrative. Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying the intelligence community has "six ways to Sunday" to get back at Trump. The speaker discusses the Steele dossier and claims that the FBI also paid for it. He alleges that the intelligence community assessment on Russian hacking was based on handpicked analysts and that Obama stated the conclusions of Russian hacking getting to WikiLeaks were inconclusive. He claims NSA collects everything and there is no evidence of Russian hacking. The speaker references Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages, where they expressed support for Hillary Clinton and a determination to "stop" Trump. He claims Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, later said there was "no there there" regarding Russia gate. The speaker claims Julian Assange released documentation of the CIA's cyber tool to hack into systems and leave telltale signs giving the responsibility to someone else. He concludes that a "deep state" within the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department acted to ensure Hillary Clinton's victory and undermine Trump.

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.

There are too many connections between Trump and Russia to be coincidences, including financial entanglements and attempts to hide meetings. Regardless of the Trump investigation, Russia interfered in the election to help Trump, hurt the speaker, and destabilize democracy, and they haven't stopped. The Russians stole campaign manager John Podesta's emails, conveyed them to WikiLeaks, and released them the same day as the "Hollywood Access" tape. The emails were weaponized and targeted at specific voters. Investigators are looking into where the Russians got the targeting information. The Russian government, directed by Putin, engaged in espionage against Americans to influence the election, as confirmed by 17 intelligence agencies. The most important question is whether Trump will admit and condemn Russian interference and reject their espionage, which he has encouraged in the past. Trump's admiration for Putin, a "wannabe dictator," is exemplified by his suggestion to leave NATO, giving a green light to a "murderous, brutal dictator."

I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. there is evidence that is not circumstantial and and is very much worthy of investigation. I I think the claims that there was no evidence collusion have long since fallen away. Christopher Steele may have found out even before our own intelligence agencies that the Russians were in fact aiming to help Donald Trump in the election. That has now been borne out by ample evidence. I think you see the most palpable evidence of a collusion in terms of violating the Logan Act. The evidence is quite overwhelming on this. But look, you can see evidence in plain sight, on the issue of collusion. The evidence is in plain sight.

We have found the evidence that proves that this Obama led intelligence community assessment was a contrived document, that was knowingly made using a fake intelligence or substandard intelligence in order to drive this, conclusion that president Obama wanted to see, which was that Russia helped Donald Trump get elected in 2016 or at least aspire to. This directly contradicted every other intelligence community assessment, every other assessment that came from the intelligence community for the last several months prior, both before the twenty sixteen election as well as immediate, immediately after.

Speaker 0 states that the intelligence community assessment at the time contained no information about the election's impact and never mentioned collusion. According to Speaker 0, they are accused of a conspiracy by those who misrepresent the facts. Speaker 0 claims President Obama instructed them not to do anything that would affect the election's outcome or release reports naming American citizens. Speaker 0 says they carried out their responsibilities with integrity. Speaker 1 claims the report contains extensive information relating to collusion and obstruction. Speaker 1 believes anyone can identify interactions and meetings between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russians, and that it was enlightening.

In the video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been found. Speaker 1 mentions that information can be found in the report prepared by director Mueller, but they are not aware of any collusion or conspiracy. Speaker 0 then interrupts and states that when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, they did not have any information suggesting that anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

Speaker 0 argues that sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of our elections undermines democracy, calls it dangerous, and says it is work that benefits adversaries because democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters and that those who occupy power were chosen by the people. Speaker 1 states that every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians hacked the DNC, and that the information released was the consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels; the CIA assesses that it was done purposefully to tilt the election toward a particular candidate, which is not a surprise, and this was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Hillary campaign.

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.

Speaker 0 says that over the last several weeks they declassified and released documents exposing that President Obama and leaders in the intelligence community knowingly manufactured a false intelligence document after the 2016 election. The document alleged that Russia aspired to help President Trump win the election with the aim of undermining his presidency and usurping the will and the voices of the American people who sent Trump to the White House.

The speaker believes the raid on Mar-a-Lago was an attempt to prevent Trump's reelection, possibly to find the intelligence community assessment on Russia's influence in the 2016 election. This report allegedly shows that if Putin favored anyone, it was Hillary Clinton, and that Trump and Russia did not collude. The speaker claims the report contains every piece of relevant intelligence and that Clinton and the DNC did collude. The speaker is confident that the DOJ strike force, along with information from the Durham report and a real team of investigators, will uncover the truth. He mentions criminal referrals he and John Ratcliffe made, expressing hope that the conspirators will be held accountable.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

Speaker 0 claims that there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but cannot provide specifics. Speaker 1 asks if there is evidence to support the FBI's investigation into collusion, to which Speaker 0 responds that there is a sufficient basis for the investigation to continue. Speaker 0 disagrees with members who claim there is no evidence of collusion, stating that real evidence is emerging. They mention Christopher Steele's findings and the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump. Speaker 0 asserts that there is overwhelming evidence of collusion and conspiracy. Speaker 3 questions if any evidence of collusion has been found, and Speaker 0 insists that there is plenty of evidence in plain sight.

There is significant evidence, much of it in the public domain on the issue of collusion. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. There is circumstantial evidence certainly of collusion or coordination. We're also looking at persistent allegations that the Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization. The president once said, "the Saudis are spending tens of millions of dollars on my Trump Towers and buying apartments from me." "Okay. So they murdered journalists, but please, they buy apartments from me." That could be part of a broad conspiracy. He is acting like a person who is compromised. Mueller: "the biggest news... there are no new indictments for that underlying any cooperation conspiracy with the Russians to interfere in our elections." On Ukraine: "The favor is to investigate his political rival, to investigate the Bidens." "Don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I've asked." This is how a mafia boss talks. Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election. "I've never met the whistleblower." "I should have been much more clear about that." We wanted to bring the whistleblower in at that time, but I should have been much more clear about that. Members of congress need to uphold the truth as well, and we need to attack the problem of dissemination of lies through social media.

Speaker 0 says it's "preposterous that we were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails again in the year 2025," that "they get activated," and that Trump won't be blamed for not releasing the Epstein files, "We spent years on this story." Speaker 1 counters, "No. Let let me you you had to take this story seriously for years, and it was false. It wasn't false." He asserts that "When Trump won in 2016, the intel community concluded that Russia didn't have a hand in his victory," but "Obama determined and wanted a new conclusion," sending "Brennan" to "come up with a new collusion," and insists "There was no proof." They claim "They amplified a false conclusion that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016." He adds, "The Democrats never cared about Epstein until they saw a political motivation," while noting "the right is more on top of Epstein" and that "We actually cared," concluding with "Save me your selective outrage."

There is ample, clear, significant, abundant, and direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The president seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth and may be compromised by a foreign power. The Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization, and Trump continues to believe Russian propaganda, making him dangerous. Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians. There is circumstantial evidence of collusion or coordination, and direct evidence of deception. The Trump campaign welcomed Russian help, built it into their campaign plan, never reported it, made full use of it, and then lied about it. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. The case is more than circumstantial.

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.

Discussion centers on a claim from a book that "the president is compromised by the Russians," citing "the way he talked to Lavrov and Kislyag in the Oval Office" and "the whole issue of Comey's firing, what he said to Lester Holt," with the assertion that "there was no proof established by the Mueller investigation." Speaker 1 counters: "that's not quite true, Andrea. I think the Mueller investigation said that they were unable to prove to a legal standard or bring criminal charges that something had occurred. But they point throughout the report to a variety of deep counterintelligence concerns." He cites "the recent bipartisan senate intelligence committee report, almost a thousand pages from a Republican led senate committee laying out all these counterintelligence concerns," and says "the data is too great to ignore." He concludes: "So, yes, I believe that the president is compromised by the Russians," asserting it "comes from financial entanglements that he is fighting to become known, that the Russians know about and can hold over him," and "from the way they're able to play into his ego and his strange fascination and coziness with dictators and authoritarians around the world." Speaker 0 adds: "Now I remember talking in 2017, the 2017, to a form"

One speaker accuses Christopher Steele of being a "grifter" who colluded with the Clinton campaign to smear President Trump as a Russian asset and sabotage his Russia/Ukraine policies. They claim Steele weaponized FISA courts and international spy agencies, and that his efforts aim to tank the "America First" movement. The speaker also references the Hunter Biden hard drive, asserting that Steele likely helped draft the letter claiming it was Russian disinformation, which they say was false. They accuse Steele of having no actual evidence against Trump. Steele responds that he is a professional intelligence officer, not a politician, and a loyal ally of the United States for 40 years, working closely with Republican and Democrat administrations. He denies working for or having contact with the Clinton campaign, stating he was a subcontractor reporting findings to the FBI, which he believes was the right thing to do.

"We look at where we are now over the last several weeks. We've declassified and released documents that exposed how president Obama and leaders in the intelligence community knowingly manufactured a false intelligence document after the twenty sixteen election was done, after the American people said, no, we want Donald Trump to go and be our commander in chief, not Hillary Clinton." "And this manufactured document alleged that Russia aspired to help president Trump win the election with the aim of undermining his presidency and usurping the will and the voices of the American people who sent Trump to the White House."

One speaker accuses Christopher Steele of being a "grifter" who colluded with the Clinton campaign to undermine Donald Trump and sabotage his Russia/Ukraine policies. They claim Steele "weaponized" FISA courts and spy agencies to smear Trump as a Russian asset, and is now trying to tank the "America First" movement. The speaker also brings up the Hunter Biden hard drive, saying Steele likely helped draft the letter claiming it was Russian disinformation. Steele responds that he is a professional intelligence officer, not a politician, and a loyal ally of the United States for 40 years, working closely with both Republican and Democrat administrations. He denies working for or having contact with the Clinton campaign, stating he was a subcontractor for a Washington firm and reported his findings to the FBI, which he believes was the right thing to do.

There is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, according to Mister Durham. The FBI's investigation had failures and did not reveal any conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Russian authorities. Vice President Biden and President Obama were aware of this, while Hillary Clinton fabricated it. The FBI orchestrated the investigation, and the media sold it to the public. The question remains: who watches the watchmen? The FBI is seen as protecting the nation's capital but not the American people. Republicans on the judiciary committee must hold the FBI accountable.

Some say this is a witch hunt, but they've caught a few witches. There have been a few indictments. One lawyer called the investigation absurd. But is it? We broke the story about the existence of the dossier and that President Trump had been briefed, but we didn't mention its contents. The FBI director was talking about prostitutes. Almost exactly two years ago, we reported that President Trump had been briefed on the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, including the existence of the dossier. Despite the president's denial, the special counsel's team has already proven some of the claims in that dossier are true. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion? Yes, we have. I just want the truth and facts to be respected again in this country.

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