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.

Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former president Obama in criminal behavior? We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents, to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this. Correct. The evidence that we have, found and that we have released, directly point to president Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact. I'm leaving the criminal charges to the Department of Justice. I am not an attorney, but as I've said previously, when you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community. The expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a year's long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine president Trump's administration. The senate intelligence committee spent several years looking into this and unanimously agreed in a bipartisan fashion.

The speaker discusses a meeting at Trump Tower with the president-elect. The purpose was to convey evidence and assessments regarding Russian objectives and capabilities. The speaker states they are not going to get into the details of that meeting. The speaker confirms they provided the briefing that the president-elect deserved to get. The speaker says Trump should have come away with a clear understanding of where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers, and John Brennan stood on these issues.

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."

I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. there is evidence that is not circumstantial and and is very much worthy of investigation. I I think the claims that there was no evidence collusion have long since fallen away. 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. That has now been borne out by ample evidence. I think you see the most palpable evidence of a collusion in terms of violating the Logan Act. The evidence is quite overwhelming on this. But look, you can see evidence in plain sight, on the issue of collusion. The evidence is in plain sight.

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.

In the video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been found. Speaker 1 mentions that information can be found in the report prepared by director Mueller, but they are not aware of any collusion or conspiracy. Speaker 0 then interrupts and states that when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, they did not have any information suggesting that anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

There are more documents to be declassified that will show how sinister the FBI was in amplifying Hillary Clinton's steel dossier as real and credible, and how they buried the counterintelligence referral memo. According to Speaker 1, he and FBI director Patel will be declassifying these additional documents. Speaker 1 stated that there is no Russia collusion hoax file cabinet at the FBI or CIA, and that they have to look for well-hidden documents by tracing through emails and looking for signs and clues. The Trump administration will continue to shed transparency, light, and truth because this was the greatest political scandal of our lifetime. It derailed the country and President Trump's first four years in office, and Donald Trump is committed to making sure it doesn't happen again.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

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.

There is significant evidence, much of it in the public domain on the issue of collusion. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. There is circumstantial evidence certainly of collusion or coordination. We're also looking at persistent allegations that the Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization. The president once said, "the Saudis are spending tens of millions of dollars on my Trump Towers and buying apartments from me." "Okay. So they murdered journalists, but please, they buy apartments from me." That could be part of a broad conspiracy. He is acting like a person who is compromised. Mueller: "the biggest news... there are no new indictments for that underlying any cooperation conspiracy with the Russians to interfere in our elections." On Ukraine: "The favor is to investigate his political rival, to investigate the Bidens." "Don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I've asked." This is how a mafia boss talks. Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election. "I've never met the whistleblower." "I should have been much more clear about that." We wanted to bring the whistleblower in at that time, but I should have been much more clear about that. Members of congress need to uphold the truth as well, and we need to attack the problem of dissemination of lies through social media.

There is ample, clear, significant, abundant, and direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The president seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth and may be compromised by a foreign power. The Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization, and Trump continues to believe Russian propaganda, making him dangerous. Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians. There is circumstantial evidence of collusion or coordination, and direct evidence of deception. The Trump campaign welcomed Russian help, built it into their campaign plan, never reported it, made full use of it, and then lied about it. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. The case is more than circumstantial.

Speaking about 2016 events, the speaker questions why the FBI never took the server and why they were told to leave the DNC office: 'Haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?' He says: 'Where is the server? I wanna know where is the server, and what is the server saying?' 'I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months, and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media.' He adds: 'My people came to me. Dan Coats came to me and some others. They said they think it's Russia.' 'I have president Putin. He just said it's not Russia.' 'I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be, but I do wanna see the server.' 'With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.'

Did you serve as CFO for Hillary Clinton's campaign? Yes, in 2016. Did you facilitate the payment for the Steele dossier? That was not something I was aware of. Yes or no? It was not something I was aware of. I yield back the rest of my time.

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.

Some say this is a witch hunt, but they've caught a few witches. There have been a few indictments. One lawyer called the investigation absurd. But is it? We broke the story about the existence of the dossier and that President Trump had been briefed, but we didn't mention its contents. The FBI director was talking about prostitutes. Almost exactly two years ago, we reported that President Trump had been briefed on the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, including the existence of the dossier. Despite the president's denial, the special counsel's team has already proven some of the claims in that dossier are true. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion? Yes, we have. I just want the truth and facts to be respected again in this country.

The speaker discusses a meeting at Trump Tower with the president-elect. The meeting, which lasted several hours, involved conveying knowledge and assessments regarding Russian objectives and capabilities. The speaker states they are not going to get into the details of that meeting. The speaker confirms they provided the briefing that the president-elect deserved. The speaker says that Trump should have come away with a very clear understanding of where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers, and John Brennan stood on these issues.

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