TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

Speaker 0: Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of conclusion was taking place. Speaker 0: That doesn't help us a lot. What was the nature of the information? Speaker 1: As I said, mister Gowdy, I think this committee now has access to the type of information that I'm alluding to here. It's classified and I'm happy to talk about it in classified session. Speaker 0: And that would have been directly between the candidate and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: That's not what I said. I'm not going to talk about any individual's But Speaker 0: that was my question.

You're being considered for FBI director, yet you didn't check if your associates, including the president, were involved in attacking police officers. Look at the Capitol Police behind you. Are you proud of raising money from those who assaulted them? You claim to support law enforcement, but your actions tell a different story. Did you ever publicly state that Donald Trump declassified all documents at Mar-a-Lago? You mentioned a declassification order, but did you confirm it included all those documents? Shouldn't we consider the potential risks to sources before declaring documents declassified? Did Trump consult agencies about the risks? You say you support transparency; will you back the release of your grand jury testimony and relevant sections of the special counsel's report? Your time is up.

It's our constitutional duty to do oversight. "Now in that video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago. When I said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the capital and how many went into the capital. Can you answer that now?" "I don't know the answer to that question." "Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were or there were none?" "I don't know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any, I don't know how many." "You've had don't know whether there are any." "I think you may have just perjured yourself that you don't know that there were any. You want to say that again? That you don't know that there were any?" "In discovery, in the cases that were filed with respect to January 6, The Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking." "With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of of the FBI." "Mister Epps has been charged, and there's a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject." "The charge is a joke."

The American people wanna know what happened on Epstein Island. "I'm not gonna drop this topic." You've subpoenaed Bill Clinton. He's gonna fight you tooth and nail, with the best lawyers in the country. Do you think Bill Clinton ever actually testifies? This is a bipartisan, congressionally approved subpoena, and I think that will hold a lot of weight in court. America wants to know what went on at Epstein Island. The Oversight Committee is going back to the earliest days of Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with the Justice Department, including Acosta, who said, I was told to go easy on him because he's intel. They're going back to Mueller as FBI director. Hillary Clinton is on the list—what does she have to do with Epstein? Flight logs. This is extremely broad: everything the DOJ has except the names of the victims. How did he die? The MAGA base has been vocal; they want to know answers.

I have never received any money from any foreign source in my entire life. It has come to our attention that the current president has paid significantly more taxes in China, possesses a hidden bank account in China, conducts business in China, and has made claims about me accepting money. However, I want to clarify that I have never accepted any money from any country at any time.

Hillary Clinton personally signed off on something. Robby Mook made it clear that Clinton paid Fusion GPS through her campaign and lawyers, and was told the papers provided hadn't been verified. They figured the media would vet the information, specifically Slate, not the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. This occurred while Clinton was deleting emails and having server issues. Clinton's team had an October surprise, and on October 31st, she retweeted Jake Sullivan's tweet about Trump's server with Alfa Bank, which was a lie. Robby Mook testified that Comey, not Trump, caused the most damaging days of the campaign. Hillary Clinton said in May 2017 that if the election were on October 27th, she would be president.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies any 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.

Comey testified: Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? Never. Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in those reports? No. Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his associates been declassified or shared with the media? Not to my knowledge. Leaks have occurred, especially in the last three to six months. It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, it wouldn't change the decision. I would not conceal that on October 28 from the congress. I sent a private letter to the chairs and rankings of the oversight committees, not a public announcement. It was important that I tell them rather than conceal.

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

"James Comey decided not to work through the FBI press office when he wanted to change the narrative in Washington, burnish his reputation, against attacks from Democrats, and try to sully Donald Trump's reputation." "my goal was to improve negative stories about James Comey and to set a narrative, I e, set the Russia collusion narrative." "it depends what the meaning of the word is." "these are documents that were never given to Jim Jordan." "most classified information statutes have a five year statute of limitations, but there is a provision that extends it to ten years if it's willing and knowing." "Tomorrow though, I think we're gonna take people on a new destination, which is how often did the FBI get blocked in trying to investigate Hillary Clinton corruption at the Clinton Foundation?"

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.

The speaker questions why the FBI paid Christopher Steele $1 million to verify a dossier on Trump and offered $3 million to Twitter to suppress a story on Hunter Biden. They express concern over the FBI's actions being politically motivated. The FBI director responds by explaining the payments to social media companies are for legal process costs. The speaker accuses the FBI of damaging its reputation and questions if the FBI requested financial institutions to provide customer data. The FBI director is unsure and the speaker presents an email from Bank of America as evidence.

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.'

I bribed Hillary Clinton $18,000,000 on behalf of the FBI in 2016. The FBI wanted to set her up in a sting operation. They told me to facilitate a bribe from another government. I did this on January 14, 2016. The FBI later told me to forget about it because Hillary was going to win the election. They said Obama's people were controlling things. This was part of a plan called Operation Snow Globe to control Hillary for 8 years. I realized I was being used to manipulate her. The whole situation was a coup against Hillary that turned into the Russian collusion delusion when Trump won. I knew in 2018 they were planning to hijack the 2020 election.

I want to update you on the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton. I want to first tell you what we found. 110 emails, 52 email chains have been determined to contain classified information. Eight of those chains are top secret. 36 of those chains secret. And indeed contain confidential information. What difference, at this point, does it make? Everything I did was admitted. There was no law, no regulations. Secretary Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

As Attorney General, I'm addressing the tarmac meeting I had with Bill Clinton back in June. We met privately in Phoenix for about 45 minutes while the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails was still ongoing. Shortly after, FBI Director James Comey recommended no charges. I acknowledge that the meeting might have appeared inappropriate, but I want to be clear: we did not discuss the investigation. Our conversation was about unrelated topics, like golfing and our grandkids.

Congressional investigators are being asked if Hillary Clinton gave 20% of the US uranium supply to Russia in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. The question stems from the 2010 sale of Uranium One, a company controlling a fifth of US uranium, to Rosatom, a Russian firm. The US part of the deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, comprised of nine agencies, including the State Department, where Hillary Clinton was the boss at the time. The Hill newspaper reported that the FBI was investigating a Rosatom subsidiary for racketeering, money laundering, and bribes aimed at giving Russia more influence over the US nuclear industry while the deal was being approved. Some members of Congress want to know why they weren't told about this. The Hill also reports that the Russians were channeling millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the same time. Republicans are questioning if Hillary Clinton helped this deal along.

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.

Can you clarify the presence of federal agents or assets on January 5th and 6th? Specifically, how many were there, did they encourage people to enter the Capitol, and did any actually go inside? I can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Two years ago, you were asked the same question. Can you provide an answer now? I don't know the answer. So you don’t know how many were present or if there were any at all? I have no knowledge of that. You’ve had two years to find out.

How many illegal FISA queries have occurred under your leadership? Reports indicate over a million errors among 3.4 million queries. Do you disagree with the inspector general's assessment? I don't have those numbers right now. The court noted over 200,000 violations during your tenure. Did you knowingly mislead Senator Lee about Pfizer's involvement in the January 6 investigation? I did not perjure myself; I believed Pfizer was not involved at the time. The court found FBI personnel conducted improper queries for personal reasons. What accountability measures have been taken? There have been disciplinary actions, but I can't discuss specifics. The FBI's trust is at an all-time low, and people feel you aren't providing honest answers. In Florida, applications to work for us have increased over 100%. We are proud of our agents and they deserve better.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 asks if there is concern about retribution for opposing McCarthy. Speaker 1, not worried, says he is not a political person but believes they will work through it. He dismisses the idea of retribution, stating he is from New York and has faced worse. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 facilitated payment for the Steele dossier as Hillary Clinton's CFO. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it and states it was not something he was aware of.

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