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.

You confirmed you were asked to obstruct justice? No, that’s not what I confirmed. The Mueller report clearly stated there was no collusion or obstruction. That’s not accurate. Did you read the report? No, I haven’t. Then how do you know? Congress members clarified it. I read the entire report, and it lists ten examples of obstruction. That’s not true. Here are the examples: asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, firing Comey, trying to remove Mueller, and influencing witnesses, among others. Legal experts agree these are obstruction. How can they determine that without knowing all the facts? The report outlines actions that would have led to charges for any citizen. Attorney General Barr and the deputy AG found no obstruction. A thousand former federal prosecutors, from both parties, stated there was evidence of obstruction that would have led to charges for a regular citizen.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

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.

The speaker criticizes the FBI's actions in the Trump case, describing them as alarming and lacking in reason and explanation. They highlight numerous failures and shortcomings, such as ignoring evidence, not following leads, and failing to correct errors. The speaker also questions the lack of interviews with key individuals and suggests a cover-up. They mention the involvement of Russian intelligence and the mishandling of information. The speaker concludes by asking if justice has been served. The other speaker responds vaguely, and the conversation moves on to discuss specific instances of misconduct by the FBI.

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.

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

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.'

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 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.

An individual accuses another of repeatedly presenting unnamed FBI agents' words as truth on their network, leading viewers to believe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired in 2016, which they claim is false. The other individual denies the accusation. They then state that President Trump went to extraordinary lengths to keep specifics about his meetings with Vladimir Putin secret, even from his own administration. They play a clip of President Trump responding to a question about whether he ever worked for Russia, where he calls it insulting but does not directly answer. The individual then asks if the president of the United States ever worked on behalf of the Russians against American interests.

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.

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."

Speaker 0 states that Trump has accused people who didn't break the law of breaking the law regarding the election and that Trump said Liz Cheney should be put before a war tribunal. Speaker 1 rejects the premise, claiming Speaker 0 is imputing things, taking words out of context, and combining separate conversations. Speaker 1 believes Trump is more reasonable than people like Liz Cheney. Speaker 1 accuses the network of pushing the "Russia hoax" by taking the words of unnamed FBI agents as truth, leading viewers to believe Trump and Putin conspired in 2016. Speaker 0 counters that they covered an FBI investigation. Speaker 1 says the network gave credence to anonymous sources' accusations. Speaker 0 wants to discuss things Trump has said this week, but Speaker 1 wants to discuss the economy.

The special counsel found no evidence that any US person or Trump campaign official conspired or knowingly coordinated with Russia's interference efforts. While criminal charges were brought against Russian nationals, the key point is that collusion was not found. This supports what the president has maintained. The White House, the president, and his attorneys should be pleased with this report. After two years of asserting there was no Russia collusion, the president is now backed up by Mueller. The evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. This conclusion is supported by the special counsel's extensive investigation, which included over 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, and interviews with approximately 500 witnesses.

You continuously discussed the Russia investigation as if it were undeniable truth, leading viewers to believe in a conspiracy between Trump and Putin in 2016, which was completely false. President Trump has taken significant steps to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, he found the question insulting and did not provide a direct answer. This situation raises concerns about whether the President has acted against American interests.

During the debate, Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of lying about a Russian plan and claims that there is overwhelming evidence of Russian engagement. Speaker 1 denies these allegations, stating that intelligence agencies and former heads of the CIA have called it garbage. Speaker 0 also accuses the FBI of cheating by telling Facebook and Twitter what to do. Speaker 2 believes that the objective is to stop Donald Trump and what he represents in the political process. Speaker 0 concludes by accusing Joe Biden of lying about a major scandal, calling it cheating and election interference on an unprecedented scale.

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"

Speaker 0 argues the case is more than circumstantial: 'there is more than circumstantial evidence now' and 'there is evidence not only to have been initiated but for it to continue'. He rejects the view there is no evidence of collusion, saying 'They can call it a fishing expedition. They can call it a witch hunt. It's all in a line message with the White House.' He states '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' and that this 'has now been borne out by ample evidence.' He cites 'the Logan Act' as evidence and says 'the evidence is in plain sight.' The Senate intel chairman also said, at this point, no evidence of collusion, but he counters: 'I think there is direct evidence.'

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.

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

The discussion centers on the Inspector General's (IG) report on the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Speaker 0 claims the report vindicates the FBI from accusations of treason and illegal spying. However, Speaker 1 points out the IG's findings of significant inaccuracies and omissions in the FISA applications, including 17 errors. Speaker 0 admits to being wrong about the FISA process but maintains the Steele dossier was part of a broader mosaic of facts. Speaker 1 counters that the IG found the dossier essential to obtaining the FISA warrant and that the FBI renewed the application multiple times despite knowing the Steele reporting was not credible. Speaker 1 highlights that the CIA informed the FBI about Carter Page's relationship with them, but this information was not shared with the FISA court. Additionally, an FBI lawyer allegedly altered a document to state Page was not a source. Speaker 0 states the IG did not find misconduct by FBI personnel, only mistakes. Speaker 1 notes that the case of Kevin Klein Smith has been referred for criminal investigation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the IG did not find criminal misconduct, political bias, or illegal conduct.