TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There are some very suspect things about how the Hillary Clinton email investigation was handled. The fact that Loretta Lynch, who was the attorney general at the time, met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac right before Hillary had to speak with the FBI is definitely one of them. Also, Loretta Lynch told Jim Comey to publicly call this a matter, instead of a criminal investigation. These actions downplayed what Hillary Clinton had done while all the drama was being created around Donald Trump and the Russia collusion, which never materialized. What the American people are going to find out about the FBI is astonishing, especially the level of bias.

Kamala Harris has a law degree but failed the bar exam. She served in the California senate without passing any legislation. As vice president, she has a low approval rating. Donald Trump, a successful businessman, has created jobs and has a higher approval rating. The speaker suggests choosing Trump to run a company over Kamala based on their track records.

Defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine and meeting with figures like Bashar al Assad demonstrates poor judgment. Such actions undermine trust among allies, impacting intelligence sharing. A notable instance was when Donald Trump met with the Russian ambassador and potentially shared sensitive intelligence from a foreign source. This behavior can lead foreign intelligence agencies to withhold critical information, ultimately making Americans less safe. If allies lack trust in U.S. leadership, it poses a significant problem for national security.

Tulsi Gabbard has met with controversial figures and violated State Department guidelines by secretly visiting Syria to meet with Assad, who has used chemical weapons against his own people. Many view her as a potential Russian asset. Given her position, this raises serious concerns about her access to sensitive intelligence information, which could pose a risk to national security. The implications of her appointment are seen as highly irresponsible.

Tulsi Gabbard's potential access to national security information raises concerns, especially given her perceived support from Russia. Her nomination is seen as particularly damaging, more so than Matt Gaetz's. Despite her claims of being anti-war, Gabbard aligns with pro-war figures, particularly regarding Syria. Ultimately, her nomination is viewed as a pro-war stance on a global scale, similar to Donald Trump's presidency.

There is a significant conflict between Donald Trump, his adviser Steve Bannon, and U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. This tension centers on Syria, where the CIA has invested heavily in efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Trump's campaign policy suggested cooperation with Assad and Russia to combat ISIS, which contradicts the CIA's objectives. This creates challenges for the CIA, as many of its personnel have built careers and alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to support the overthrow of Assad.

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.'

He's provoking the intelligence community by criticizing them, which is unwise. They have ways to retaliate. The intelligence community is upset with how he's treated them. We rely on them for information, especially regarding Russian hacking.

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.

Donald Trump could lose support if involved in suspicious financial activities or if his family received large sums from foreign interests. Similar scenarios involving Biden raise questions about potential corruption.

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

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

The 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

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

Hillary Clinton strategically tries to connect Trump to Russia, but there is no substantial evidence of a connection. Trump's attempts to invest in Russia have been unsuccessful, highlighting the lack of significant contacts. On the other hand, while Clinton was Secretary of State, there is a well-documented pattern of people and entities seeking favorable decisions donating to the Clinton Foundation or engaging in business deals with her associates. Notably, Clinton approved the sale of 20% of US uranium reprocessing rights to a Russian company, which coincided with a large donation to the Clinton Foundation from Russian interests. Additionally, Clinton's campaign manager, Podesta, was involved with a company that received a $35 million investment.

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.

Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a crisis. A man easily provoked by a tweet cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Jackie Kennedy once said that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy worried that a war could be started by small-minded individuals driven by fear and pride. America's strength lies in intelligence, sound judgment, calm determination, and the strategic use of power. This is the type of leader I promise to be as commander in chief.

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.

There’s a lack of empathy for regular people, but we can rely on the dedicated professionals in our intelligence agencies to protect our democracy and nation. These unsung heroes work quietly and will act to safeguard our institutions. The attorney general overseeing the FBI, CIA, and law enforcement won't allow anyone to dismantle these vital agencies. Such actions would only make us vulnerable to threats. If there were any risks, they would arise immediately if he were to take office, but he won't. Donald Trump will not be our next president.

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

Hillary Clinton has support from 11 Fortune 100 CEOs, while an undecided lifelong Republican is hesitant to vote for Donald Trump due to concerns about his temperament. Business leaders are hesitant to support Trump due to his behavior and lawsuits against his companies. Despite this, some Republican donors are funding efforts to keep Clinton's numbers down to maintain control of the Senate. Comparisons are drawn between Mitt Romney's successful business record and Trump's history of bankruptcies. The key for Trump to win over business leaders is to focus on his message of change in Washington.

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.

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