reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

I want to address the dishonest narrative that's been emerging. Many outlets are fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House, but the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. These judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. They have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted.

Breaking news from the Southern District of Florida (SD-FL): two junior assistant US attorneys have resigned after being asked to participate in a broad investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A source familiar with internal concerns tells MSNBC that US Attorney Jason Redding Quinones called a division-wide meeting this afternoon to address the resignations and the investigation. The reporting notes that at least 30 subpoenas were sent out late Friday by SD-FL to individuals including former CIA chief John Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In addition to the resignations, it is reported that one of the junior ASAs who resigned felt unable to participate because doing so would violate their ethical responsibilities. The resignations are notable because it would be unusual for junior ASAs to be pulled into such a major investigation. Significantly, the subpoenas were signed by SD-FL’s number three, the executive assistant US attorney, rather than by a career prosecutor in leadership. This is presented as abnormal, with a comparison made to past instances where leadership signatures were absent from such actions, such as Lindsay Halligan signing indictments in the Northern District of Virginia due to a lack of available career prosecutors. The developments prompted SD-FL US Attorney Quinones to convene a unit-wide meeting of two to three dozen prosecutors in the major crimes division. The scope of the ongoing investigation remains unclear, but it is connected to the broader claim—involving Trump administration officials—that former Obama and Biden administration officials undertook to undermine the candidacies and presidencies of Donald Trump. The report also notes that President Trump has explicitly called for the jailing of Barack Obama and referenced other individuals in relation to the investigation. Subpoenas have been issued, and at least two SD-FL assistant US attorneys have resigned so far. In summary, two junior ASAs resigned after being asked to participate in a high-profile investigation tied to claims of Russian interference in 2016, with subpoenas issued to notable former officials, and the sign-off on those subpoenas coming from the office’s number-three official, prompting an internal meeting at SD-FL.

Congress has little power and is offended that the speaker won't appear before a partisan committee. The speaker believes the real story goes back to 2016, with attempts to interfere with the election and overthrow the Trump administration. The speaker stands for fair trade, securing borders, and ending endless wars. Special interests in Washington can't make money under Trump, so they weaponize the justice system to prevent his return to the White House.

President Biden and his administration are being accused of politicizing the Department of Justice for personal and political gain. They are allegedly targeting political opponents, such as Donald Trump and his supporters, while also protecting themselves and their allies. This undermines the foundation of our democracy, the rule of law. If this continues, it sets a dangerous precedent where the party in power can use law enforcement to go after their opponents. The FBI and DOJ are being criticized for being weaponized and politicized, leading to unequal justice and application of laws. Additionally, Biden's previous denials about his involvement in his son's foreign business deals are being contradicted by evidence. The actions of the administration are deeply concerning and do not reflect the values of the American people.

The discussion argues that identifying government corruption requires identifying the actors, and frames RussiaGate as a politically funded operation used in intelligence and law enforcement to obtain a secret-court authorization by lying about a political opponent to surveil him, taking two years to unpack. The central claim is that Gina Haspel was a leading architect of RussiaGate and remained behind the scenes, later becoming Trump’s CIA director. The transcript asserts that in 2016, when RussiaGate was launched in England, Gina Haspel was the CIA station chief for England and the top intelligence officer in the United Kingdom. It claims that, for lawful overseas intelligence and law enforcement operations, the number-one office of the DNI representation must authorize offensive operations, and that Gina Haspel, as the authorized representative in England, had to authorize such activities. The transcript states that new reporting indicates US FBI and intelligence community officials, and possibly other overseas intelligence allies, were involved in “bumpings” in England, and that this could not have happened without Haspel’s authorization. It further claims the key questions were why she did it, what legality she understood, what extent of knowledge she had, and what internal memorandums she would have written to authorize the conduct, including who she worked with, such as Comey, McCabe, Stroock, Page, and others, across England and America. A second key point is that, according to the transcript, Haspel blocked release of an ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) report. It refers to a report by Devin Nunes and the team on John Brennan’s ICA that the transcript says was critical and should have been released during the Trump administration through the end. It claims Haspel stonewalled it and that it remains in a safe at CIA headquarters, portraying this as the reason the report is still classified and not publicly available. The transcript explains that in 2016 and 2017, John Brennan was ordered by Obama to issue the ICA on what Russia did, if anything, to interfere in US elections, and that the produced report was largely false. It states that, in parallel, Nunes and others created a classified seventeen-page report assessing what went into the ICA, who conducted interviews, what intelligence was used, whether it was false, and whether there was political motivation. The transcript says this report was not released, and calls Haspel the single most important figure blocking it. It also claims this helps demonstrate that the IC was involved and that there was “tons more corruption.” The transcript adds that the president reportedly wanted declassification, but says Haspel worked with DOJ figures including Pat Cipollone and others to argue “national security” concerns. It states the declassification fight was lost due to time constraints and links Joe Biden’s win to burying the materials. It concludes by saying that if President Trump wins, the transcript expects this and other material to be declassified, and it cites Washington Post journalist David Ignatius writing an article congratulating Haspel for blocking release, implying that the article reflected knowledge of the report’s contents and political impact.

The speaker questions why Pam Bondi hasn't prosecuted Garland and asks if the rule is that only Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon go to jail for obstructing Congress. They assert that the case doesn't require six months to decide, as it was resolved by the prior administration. The speaker suggests Garland wouldn't prosecute himself within the Justice Department. They express confusion about the difficulty in deciding whether to prosecute someone or, at least, announcing a review of the issue.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

Three whistleblowers have accused the FBI and Department of Justice of giving preferential treatment and delaying investigations into the Bidens. FBI Director Christopher Wray's refusal to comply with a congressional oversight subpoena regarding an unclassified document supports these claims. Despite claiming the need to protect sources and methods, there are no national security concerns. Director Wray's lack of trust and previous FBI abuses make it unlikely he will win this battle. If the document is released, it may reveal a foreign national offering a $5 million bribe to Joe Biden for foreign policy considerations. Additionally, there is a need to question former FBI Director James Comey under oath regarding inconsistencies in his testimony and his knowledge of the Hillary Clinton intelligence plan. The House Oversight Committee should not back down.

President Trump is facing multiple criminal trials, with allegations of interference in elections. Various officials are accused of targeting him politically, including mishandling classified information. The speaker raises concerns about government weaponization and double standards, warning of the potential implications for all Americans. The focus is on the misuse of law to target political opponents. The witnesses discuss the dangerous precedent set by these actions.

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.

While on maternity leave, I learned about inherent contempt of Congress, a power rarely used since the early 1900s. The attorney general defied two subpoenas from House chairmen. If the Department of Justice doesn't act in 10 days, I've filed a motion to bring inherent contempt proceedings against the attorney general. This allows the House to detain the attorney general until he complies with subpoenas. It's a necessary step to restore order in the House.

I've put an end to the weaponization of government. A prime example of this was when a sitting president was allowed to viciously prosecute a political opponent, like myself. But how did that turn out? Not too good. Not too good at all.

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.

Some suggest waiting for all witnesses and documents before proceeding with impeachment, but President Trump obstructed the investigation. He instructed his senior aides not to testify and defy subpoenas. He also told agencies not to provide relevant records, hindering our investigation.

Some Republican senators are obstructing the efforts of their majority party to work constructively with Democrats. They are stopping the Department of Justice, which is absurd. Senator Roger Marshall supports Senator Tommy Tuberville's stance on the sanctity of life and abortion policy in the Pentagon. Tuberville is holding up Pentagon nominations, causing delays in the process. While there are ways to bypass these holds, Democratic leaders are hesitant to use them due to time constraints and senators being frequently absent or on recess.

The Justice Department refused to provide Judicial Watch with audio tapes of Joe Biden's interviews with special counsel Robert Hearn, citing privacy concerns. The released transcript raises questions about Biden's memory and ability to serve as president. Judicial Watch plans to challenge this decision in court, arguing that the American people have a right to access this information. Biden has the power to waive his privacy rights and release the tapes, but has not done so.

The uproar over the anti-Trump partisan Mueller operation suggests that the Garland Justice Department may be hiding something. Special prosecutor Jack Smith and his team are targeting Trump and other Republicans with unprecedented investigations. It is important for Smith to be held accountable and for transparency to be maintained. The American people deserve to know the truth.

The Secret Service is refusing to cooperate, stonewalling efforts to uncover the facts. They have not testified or provided documents, which raises serious concerns. The director, Ron Rowe, should be removed for his inadequate response that endangered the president's life. This lack of transparency follows two assassination attempts and parallels the FBI's current stonewalling regarding drone incidents in New Jersey and elsewhere. It's time for accountability and a thorough overhaul of these agencies.

President Trump's home was raided over a document dispute, while Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are being protected by the Justice Department. The Biden administration is ignoring the American people's concerns about the equal application of the rule of law.

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 speaker questions the attorney general about pardons for January 6th offenders and asks if she advised the president on this. The attorney general refuses to discuss conversations with the president. The speaker accuses the administration of incompetence, corruption, and cruelty, focusing on corruption. She asks if the attorney general was ever registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The attorney general acknowledges representing Qatar for anti-human trafficking efforts related to the World Cup. The speaker accuses her of being a registered lobbyist for Qatar and not disclosing this during her Senate confirmation. The attorney general claims it was discussed in detail. The speaker asks if the attorney general advised that President Trump could accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar. The attorney general refuses to discuss advice given to the president. The speaker asks if she recused herself from that issue, and the attorney general questions the speaker's claim that the president wanted the jet because it was "pretty."

Speaker 0 says the issue is important to all Americans and not partisan, framing it as about “the integrity and the strength of our democratic republic.” They state that they have released and declassified “over 100 documents” describing what they say happened when powerful people in the country—President Obama and his senior national security cabinet—James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and others, “essentially” made an intentional decision to create a “manufactured politicized piece of intelligence” aimed at subverting the will of the American people after the November 2016 election, which Speaker 0 characterizes as a historic victory for President Trump over Hillary Clinton. Speaker 0 argues that the objective of Obama and his team was not to accept the election results and that the strategy became the basis for what Speaker 0 describes as a “years-long coup against President Trump.” Speaker 0 references consequences they attribute to this decision, including a “years-long Mueller investigation” costing taxpayers almost $40 million, “two congressional impeachments,” “endless smears and attacks” against President Trump and his family, and investigations that they say involved senior members of his team, including arrests and jailings. They also cite “heightened and increased tensions between the United States and Russia,” and describe additional ongoing consequences of “politicizing intelligence.” Speaker 0 concludes by saying their remarks are intended to highlight this alleged use of politicized intelligence to enact a “years long coup” and then notes, “Now, you reference this this president's daily brief documentary.”

Individual judges have abused the system by issuing nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump's agenda. Statistics show that 67% of all national injunctions issued over the last 100 years have been against Donald J. Trump. 92% of those injunctions were issued by Democrat-appointed judges. This must be stopped.