TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Democrats recently passed a resolution granting Adam Schiff significant authority in the impeachment process. Schiff has attempted to impeach the president three times, initially claiming treason and collusion with Russia, which was proven false. He then focused on obstruction of justice, but Bob Mueller's findings did not support that claim. Now, a new impeachment effort involves a whistleblower who had prior contact with Schiff's staff, yet the details remain undisclosed. Schiff has not released the inspector general's sworn testimony that would confirm these interactions. Essentially, if there were a trial, the individual who introduced questionable evidence should not be the one deciding its validity.

We've learned that the Intelligence Community's Inspector General can't provide any information about contacts between the majority and the whistleblower before his involvement. The only way to obtain that information is from the majority themselves. They are fact witnesses in the same investigation they are running. Nowhere else in America can you be both a fact witness and the prosecutor in an investigation, especially one to remove a president. It's entirely inappropriate. Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the process.

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.

Yesterday, Democrats gave Chairman Schiff more authority in the impeachment process. But Schiff has already tried to impeach the President three times, first accusing him of treason with supposed evidence of Russian collusion, which turned out to be false. Then, he pushed for impeachment based on obstruction of justice, relying on Bob Mueller, who later admitted his analysis was based on a nonexistent legal standard. Now, we're on impeachment effort number three, involving a whistleblower who initially met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contacts between him and the whistleblower. It's like having someone who planted fake evidence ruling on its admissibility.

The nation cannot move forward unless senior people are held accountable, starting with Obama. While a former president may not be imprisoned, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, and Susan Rice should be questioned under oath about who directed them, with the threat of prison for treason. Treason is the only thing that cannot overcome a pardon. The speaker claims the outgoing Obama administration committed treason through a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected president, which hasn't stopped. Mueller and Weisman would have charged the speaker with treason if it were true. The speaker claims treason was committed against him, as a national security advisor, by the outgoing administration.

We've learned that the Intelligence Community's Inspector General can't provide information about contact between the majority and the whistleblower before the whistleblower's involvement. The only source for this information is the majority themselves. They are fact witnesses in the very investigation they're leading. In the United States, it is unheard of for someone to be both a fact witness and a prosecutor, especially in an investigation to potentially remove a president. It's inappropriate, and Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from leading an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the process.

Democrats passed a resolution giving Chairman Schiff authority in the impeachment process. Schiff has tried to impeach the President three times. The first time, he accused the President of treason and collusion with Russia, which was untrue. The second time, he cited obstruction of justice, but Mueller's analysis didn't hold up. This third impeachment effort involves a whistleblower who met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contact. The speaker likens this to a trial where the person who planted fake evidence is ruling on its admissibility.

We are contacting witnesses convicted of stealing $80,000,000 from workers' pensions. The star witness, in prison for the scam, cannot testify. Republicans chose him to testify against the president, a low choice. Mister Parnas, you...

President Trump obstructed the impeachment investigation by instructing witnesses not to testify and withholding relevant records. This mirrors his actions during the prior Department of Justice investigation. He created a false record and attacked investigators and witnesses. On July 24th, the special counsel testified, and the very next day, Trump spoke to President Zelensky to further his Ukrainian scheme. He believed he could act above the law and obstruct the investigation if caught. However, courageous individuals testified and provided undeniable evidence that Trump prioritized his political interests over national security and election integrity. He intentionally and corruptly abused his powers, which goes against the principles of our constitution. No one, not even the president, is above the law.

Attorney General Barr's refusal to release the full Mueller report and evidence led to the House Judiciary Committee holding him in contempt of Congress. Although an agreement was reached on some underlying evidence, it remains uncertain if the Department of Justice will honor the deal. Former White House counsel, Don McGahn, has also withheld documents and refused to testify. This pattern of stonewalling extends beyond the Mueller report, affecting various aspects of Americans' lives. These include the president's assault on affordable healthcare, particularly for those with preexisting conditions, family separation policy, misuse of military funds for the border wall, and attacks on civil rights protections.

The FBI investigated Donald Trump due to concerns about his ties to Russia, based on observable facts indicating a potential threat to national security and the possibility of a crime. The decision to investigate was made because the FBI is obligated to open a case when there's an articulable basis to believe a threat exists, regardless of the subject's position. Contributing factors included Trump publicly undermining the investigation, referring to it as a hoax, and the intelligence community's assessment of Russian support for his campaign. By May 2017, there were ample facts suggesting potential obstruction of justice. The speaker couldn't explain Trump's repeated leaning towards the Russians and defense of Vladimir Putin, but noted that his actions and words were concerning. The investigation grappled with a president who may have committed a federal crime and posed a national security risk. The national security risk related to the counterintelligence case, specifically Trump's potential obstruction of justice to negatively impact the investigation into Russian interference and potential connections with his campaign.

I will be heading back to Washington soon to update you on the Joe Biden investigation. Representative Mace pointed out that on the same day the House Oversight Committee received access to special activity reports, Alvin Bragg indicted President Trump in New York. On that day, we also obtained a form from the FBI stating that Joe Biden received a $5,000,000 bribery transaction while he was vice president. This shows an exploitation and abuse of the justice system. To conduct a thorough investigation without interference from the DOJ and FBI, we may need to impeach President Biden. The evidence we have makes this a likely course of action.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

Our democracy is at risk. The president believes he is above the law and can do anything. He blocked aid to another country to pressure them into investigating a political opponent. This is an abuse of power, undermines national security, and violates his oath of office. We cannot allow the president to shred the constitution. It's time for the administration to provide Congress with all the facts, including the whistleblower complaint. Congress must fully investigate the president's conduct and he should stop obstructing the investigations. If he continues to defy Congress, they will have no choice but to initiate impeachment. America is a special nation, but we must protect our democracy.

I impeached the president because he made a phone call to Ukraine. We had no choice but to impeach him.

The goal of the IRS whistleblower testimony is to have a substantive hearing. There are two main objectives: determining if crimes were committed by the Biden family and investigating whether the federal government obstructed the IRS investigation into their criminal activity. A former Senior FBI official confirmed that the whistleblower's claims about the investigation being obstructed were true. The whistleblower had informed the Ways and Means Committee that the Secret Service and the Biden transition team tipped off and warned Hunter Biden about the interview regarding criminal activity. As a result, the interview never took place, which raises concerns about potential obstruction of the investigation.

The DOJ may not want to release Biden's transcript because Republican leadership altered Nina Jankowitz's transcript by cutting and pasting. Releasing audio would uniquely chill future DOJ investigations, and finding a waiver would punish DOJ for cooperating with Congress. A Republican, Mr. Hehr, found no basis for charging Biden, while a special prosecutor indicted Trump. Republicans claim the transcript and audio are not the same. The audio is the best evidence, and releasing the transcript waived privilege. Merrick Garland should be held in contempt of Congress. Republicans deny altering Jankowicz's transcript, but claim special counsel Robert Hurst stated Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials. He declined prosecution because Biden is a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, and a jury wouldn't convict. Democrats believe the judiciary committee is dishonest enough to manipulate the video, so that is a good reason to withhold it.

President Trump has fought to deliver results for Americans despite the Democrats' baseless impeachment. High levels of government, including President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, had intelligence that this was planted by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The speaker claims there was Democratic coordination with the whistleblower, incessant leaks, and an unprecedented closed-door process, closed to members, the press, and the people, starting the inquiry without a vote. Director Comey did not follow proper protocols for briefing congressional leadership on the counterintelligence investigation. The Steele dossier justified the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The speaker asserts that the DOJ and FBI should not do the political bidding of Democrats and that lives were ruined by the illegal weaponization of the FBI and DOJ. This attack was on the American people, but support for President Trump is stronger than ever.

Tomorrow, I will file an impeachment resolution against Joe Biden. The charges include bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, and involvement in drugs and prostitution. Republicans have gathered evidence such as witness testimony, financial records, a laptop, text messages, and phone conversations. This evidence supports the impeachment articles against the president. I will file these charges tomorrow, and they only scratch the surface of the corruption and bribery allegations.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

The impeachment inquiry is based on lies, warned by Pompeo and Lev Parnas, with no specific charges against the president. The committee proceeded despite knowing the evidence was falsified. The focus should be on why the inquiry continues.

Speaker 0 (John) explains that the other side “got tired of me winning, so he joined our side,” and asserts he has no animosity toward him, only regret that it became personal for some people, not for him, because it’s always about the survivors. He describes a reversal: after months of fighting, the speaker, the attorney general, the FBI director, the president, and the vice president could save everyone if they’d done the right thing four months ago. He questions whether Congressman Greene truly supports the release now, suggesting he’s only backing it because the president told him to support it, and attributes this to Mike Johnson. Speaker 1 asks if John believes the president’s current stance, given weeks of opposition and now support. John says he is concerned the president is opening a flurry of investigations and fears they may use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files. He believes they will try to use a legal provision allowing withholding materials if they are the subject of an ongoing investigation and would harm that investigation. Speaker 2 notes that the focus is on President Trump: he initially blocked the release and now has the power to release the full files anyway. Speaker 0 summarizes that for four months the president thought secrecy was best, but someone convinced him the releases are better; if serious, they should release them now. Speaker 1 asks why John thinks the president has resisted for so long. John contends the files implicate billionaires and friends of Trump and his donors, plus Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies, which is why there’s effort to stop the release. He predicts attempts to stop it will occur elsewhere and that this will backfire. Speaker 1 asks if the president will sign the bill; John says he thinks he will sign and would like to be at the signing party, joking about being invited to sign his own bill. John addresses personal attacks: the president attacked his wife, calling Margie Taylor Greene a traitor. John says the attack was a new low for him, but he laughs it off; his wife joked about inviting Trump to their wedding, and she blames him for not inviting him, which she says led to the anger. John remains optimistic the bill will pass tomorrow, with a veto-proof majority, and thinks the speaker will begrudgingly support it. Speaker 1 asks about the public breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene over the Epstein files. John says Greene represents the base—the populist movement that brought Trump to the White House—and when Trump told supporters they are no longer his supporters if they want the Epstein files released, Trump lost many supporters, but Greene did not, and she remains in favor of seeking justice for the survivors. Speaker 1 asks if Trump has lost touch with the MAGA base. John believes Trump has strayed on fiscal responsibility, starting wars overseas and regime change, and on releasing the death steam files, away from the campaign promises that defined the MAGA base.

It is unknown if lawsuits against Donald Trump will lead to impeachment. Trump has come close to criminality, and the greatest risk to him is Special Counsel Bob Mueller. The risk is that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with corrupt motives after Comey refused to drop the Flynn investigation. There is disagreement over whether Mueller can pursue criminal charges against Trump. The DOJ and president's lawyers historically take the position that a president cannot be criminally charged. It is an unsettled question that could end up in the Supreme Court. At a minimum, Mueller can charge Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator and seek permission from the grand jury to issue a report to Congress of the illegal conduct.

The committee has not allowed Hunter Biden to testify publicly, nor have they called any first-hand witnesses to support their allegations. They lack any witnesses to back up their claims.

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."