TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

The implications are far-reaching and concern the integrity of our democratic republic. An outgoing president took action to manufacture intelligence to undermine and usurp the will of the American people in that election. This launched what would be a years-long coup against the incoming president of the United States, Donald Trump.

In 2016, there was controversy surrounding the hacking and recount of voting machines in Michigan and Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton was upset because the machines she had hacked got unhacked, and Jill Stein demanded a recount. It was believed that Hillary expected the same treatment as Joe Biden in the election. She had been promised that the game would be rigged for her, but it didn't happen. This caused her to lose her mind and throw things. In 2016, someone counterhacked the people who were going to hack on Hillary's behalf, but that didn't happen this time. The speakers know who did it but will save that for another discussion.

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."

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.

The investigation reveals that the CIA framed Trump by manipulating foreign spies to target his campaign associates. Classified documents suggest Russia actually preferred Hillary in 2016, but the CIA, led by John Brennan, fabricated evidence to suggest Russian interference in favor of Trump. Brennan's manipulation of intelligence led to the false conclusion that Russia supported Trump. The CIA is withholding a 50-page report confirming Russia's preference for Hillary. Accountability for Brennan's actions lies with Congress, who must demand the release of these documents.

In 2016, nobody believed it possible for Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. When he did, it seems president Obama just couldn't take it. He convened in 12/09/2016 meeting in the White House Situation Room just weeks after Hillary Clinton conceded. He ordered an ICA or intelligence community assessment to functionally attribute Trump's unexpected win to the doings of Vladimir Putin. That Obama ordered phony assessment was about politics, not national security or the truth.

Speaker 0 said there had been contacts between members of Mr. Trump's staff and Russian officials, and that Trump benefited from the hacks; Josh Earnest said 'it's obvious, that Trump knew what was going on.' He insisted, 'I'm not suggesting cooperation at all,' and noted the context of 'the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to, improve Trump's chances' and that 'this was the worst kept secret in this town.' He argued that the DNC and Hillary Clinton emails were released 'drip, drip fashion over the course of months,' creating the inference that it was helping Trump and hurting Hillary, though 'that doesn't mean that the Trump campaign was coordinating.' He pointed to Trump's admiration for Putin and desire for a more cooperative relationship. In October, 'every intelligence agency' agreed 'the Russians had hacked the DNC,' and CIA assessed it was 'done purposely to tilt the election.'

Russia hacked the election. President Trump still doesn't sound convinced. If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his victory over Hillary Clinton. Russia is doing it again now with election-related cyber hacking. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and 17 intelligence agencies all conclude that Russia hacked the election. If Donald Trump was colluding with Russia while they were hacking the election, that is completely impeachable. A dossier alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to hack the election. The director of national intelligence, the head of the National Security Agency, and the head of the FBI all say Russia hacked the election. To believe that's wrong, you have to believe they're all involved in an elaborate conspiracy to get Donald Trump.

I never sent or received classified information. Clinton's claim of no classified emails was false. She used multiple devices as secretary of state. Work-related emails were not all returned. Clinton did not delete work-related emails, but the email software was removed. Lawyers reviewed emails, and no reasonable prosecutor would indict. Trump may have obstructed justice according to Mueller's report.

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.

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.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager Robbie Mook testified that Clinton herself approved the idea of giving the Alpha Bank story to a reporter as part of the Trump-Russia narrative. He described a moment when the campaign told Clinton they had information alleging a link between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank through a back channel, and that she agreed to let it be shared with the media. To provide background, the report involved an allegation about the Trump Organization, via a back channel to a Russian bank named Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. In 2016, campaign attorney Michael Sussman went to James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel at the time, informing him that he had information linking the Trump Organization to a Russian bank through a back channel and via a computer server. James Baker took the information to the FBI, which investigated and found nothing substantial. The Clinton campaign also learned about the information, and Robbie Mook later stated that Clinton was briefed on the allegation and gave the approval to disseminate it to the media. Sussman faces one count of providing a false statement to the FBI. The moment described by Mook—that Clinton personally approved sending the story to a reporter—was presented as surprising in court, especially since the information later turned out to be baseless. During coverage, a reporter quotes Mook: “we told her, Hillary Clinton, we have this, and that's the information about this bank allegedly having this communication or at least the server suggested so with the Trump Organization. We told her we have this, and we wanna share it with a reporter. She agreed to that.” The discussion also notes that the information was ultimately false or lacking evidence. Questions are raised about why the information was given to reporters, including a claim that they did not have the expertise to judge the information and were briefed by Mark Elias about it. Mook says they decided to give it to a reporter so the reporter could run it down more. It’s argued that reporters may not have done due diligence to verify with the FBI or other sources, and that the story was amplified despite its lack of substantiation. Speaker commentary emphasizes the perceived strategic value of the release and critiques the media’s coverage, suggesting that the Russia narrative was intensified by those opposed to a Trump presidency. The discussion also references Mark Elias, who led the law firm that funded the Steele dossier, tying the episode to broader assertions about campaign desperation and attempts to influence the political outcome.

There is irrefutable evidence that detail how president Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. The Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was a massive pressure campaign that came right from the top. Obama and his spy chiefs knew that Putin didn't prefer Trump over Hillary, but they cooked the intelligence to make it look like he did.

The transcript states that Russia claimed to have very, very damaging information—high level DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton's physical and mental health and DNC leaders questioning whether, if elected, she would be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. Russia had this information. If they wanted to swing the election for Donald Trump, they would have released it in September or October 2016 at a pivotal time to swing momentum in Donald Trump’s direction and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did not do that deliberately. They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable president of The United States. They didn’t think Trump could win like a lot of other people. And so they were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her inaugurate expected inauguration in order to once again sow chaos within The United

The hacking on both sides occurred, but the release of DNC information to WikiLeaks was deliberate to help Trump get elected. Evidence suggests Russia's involvement. Trump's claim of being caught in the act is true. Russia has the means and motivation for such actions, making this unprecedented in US electoral history.

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.

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.

The transcript discusses a set of emails and intelligence claims regarding the 2016 U.S. election and the narratives surrounding Russia, Hillary Clinton, and the Trump campaign. It states that documents contain emails allegedly from the senior vice president of the George Soros Open Society Foundation. One email quotes a Clinton campaign adviser saying, “it will be a long term affair” and to “demonize Putin and Trump,” and adds that, “later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.” Other emails are said to reveal that Hillary Clinton approved the idea of tying Trump and Russia to election interference, describing it as a scheme hoping the allegations would distract people from her own email scandal. The documents are presented as providing clear evidence that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was behind the Russia hoax, and that the FBI knew what the Clinton team was up to, acknowledging that the information they were receiving about the Trump campaign may have come from the Clinton camp. Despite these claims, the transcript asserts that the Obama-era intelligence community proceeded with a 2017 assessment concluding that Russia aspired to help Trump win the election.

It is important to put the investigation into Trump and his associates aside. There is no denying that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump, hurt Hillary Clinton, and destabilize democracy. According to public testimony before Congress by intelligence professionals, this interference is a clear and present danger to the country. If the roles were reversed and Hillary Clinton had won, she would have stopped at nothing to find out what happened and ensure it never happens again. She would have stood up in front of the country and said that even if it advantaged her, she would not rest until the truth was uncovered.

Hillary Clinton paid for a server linked to Ukraine. The FBI didn't get the server from DNC, giving it to a Ukrainian company instead. President questions why this happened, suspecting corruption. He wants to know why millions are given to corrupt countries.

The FBI's politicized hacks aimed to bring down Donald Trump, with the help of Hillary Clinton's campaign. The report revealed that Trump's political opponents provided leads for the investigation, relying on a fabricated dossier. While we reported on this, other media outlets downplayed it. Unfortunately, there were no consequences for those involved in the Crossfire Hurricane operation. In fact, they were emboldened and repeated their actions in 2022, this time protecting Hunter Biden.

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