TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that someone, presumably a former FBI director, called for the assassination of the president. The speaker states that the individual knew exactly what he was implying, and that this implication was clear. The speaker believes the individual apologized, but doesn't want to apologize for advocating violence. The speaker calls this person a "dirty cop" and says his history is not clean. The speaker does not want to take a position on what should happen as a result of the alleged assassination call, but will leave the decision to others. The speaker suggests that leniency might be understandable if the individual had a clean history, but because he doesn't, the speaker is less inclined to be lenient.

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

They they they all see the world the same way. And what we see them doing is moving the ball around the court and teeing each other up differently, you know, to to get them to some sort of criminal investigation. You have the intelligence community taking the fruits of what it does or whatever classified stuff that it has, declassifying it, sending referrals to the justice department, and putting the department in a place to go forward and say, okay. We are looking at this and using the specter of criminality to examine Trump's foes, the original foes like Obama, Brennan, and Comey. I mean, Andrew Weisman, I don't know what moves the men in the manosphere, but it looks so freaking lame and weak to be so obsessed with Obama.

The speaker asserts that former FBI Director James Comey's use of "86" regarding Trump was a veiled call to assassination, referencing the "8647" slogan used by anti-Trump protesters. They claim Comey is lying about not understanding the meaning, especially given his background prosecuting mobsters who use similar language. The speaker highlights a Rutgers study indicating that over 55% of respondents felt assassinating Trump would be "somewhat justified," attributing this to figures like Comey. They emphasize the seriousness of the threat, citing past assassination attempts and the influence of figures like Comey on public perception. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable under the law for issuing what they view as a direct threat against the President, potentially goading authorities to make him a "political martyr." They state that someone making similar threats against them is currently jailed and indicted. They conclude that Comey should be in jail due to the potential impact of his words on those who take him seriously, given his stature and media portrayal.

One speaker asserts Brennan may claim a statute of limitations as a defense, but in a 2023 deposition, Brennan said he had no role in getting the Steele dossier into the intelligence community assessment. The speaker claims whistleblowers at CIA and John Ratcliffe say this is false. The speaker believes Brennan should be charged for lying to Congress, stating intelligence chiefs have avoided perjury charges, citing James Clapper's testimony on bulk domestic intelligence collection followed by the Snowden leaks. The speaker argues there needs to be accountability at the CIA, otherwise, people will feel emboldened. The speaker believes Russiagate hamstrung the entire presidency, leading the world to believe Trump was a Russian asset. They claim that in a July 2019 congressional hearing, Mueller had nothing, and they took down key elements of an entire presidency.

Speaker 0 claims Kash Patel lacks the character and integrity to be FBI director, asserting his only qualification is a willingness to cross moral, ethical, and legal lines when others refused. They state Patel is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents instead of protecting public safety. Speaker 1 alleges Adam Schiff is the "worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years" and met with a whistleblower, Charmela, while publicly denying knowledge of the situation. They claim Schiff led the impeachment trial of President Trump after manufacturing false accusations with Charmela. They assert Schiff lied to set up a presidential impeachment and should be investigated for his interactions with Charmela. They state Schiff, who manufactured evidence with Charmela, was the prosecutor in the case against Trump, which is a conflict of interest.

Pam Bondi and the Trump DOJ are investigating James Comey and John Brennan's conduct as FBI and CIA heads. Brennan, a proponent of waterboarding under George W. Bush, allegedly shifted his views to align with the Obama administration, including commenting on Islam, to secure his appointment as CIA director. He then attacked Bush, the president he had served.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. They had the opportunity to acknowledge his actions and move on, but they're still defending him. I find it hard to understand their psychology.

Speaker 0 states that sources claim Brennan used "reverse targeting" to entrap Trump advisors Carter Page and George Papadopoulos via Halper and Mifsud. Papadopoulos told former Australian ambassador Downer about Russian offers to help Trump. This appears to be how Russiagate started. Speaker 1 believes John Brennan is a dark figure. Speaker 1 was arrested in 2012 and charged with espionage for blowing the whistle on the sea ice torch program. Speaker 1 claims to have found memos where Brennan told Holder to charge him with espionage, even though Holder's people didn't think he committed it, and then to make him defend himself. The espionage charges were dropped after Speaker 1 went bankrupt from legal fees. Speaker 1 believes Brennan was responsible for the origin of Russiagate. Speaker 1 claims the FBI isn't capable of such operations, but the CIA and John Brennan are. Speaker 1 claims Brennan and his contemporaries devise operations to get from point A to point C, ruining people along the way, and discusses potential tactics.

According to declassified information, former CIA Director John Brennan is in trouble and may be indicted. A report from the House Select Committee on Intelligence alleges that Brennan knowingly published three reports containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible. While Brennan is entitled to due process, this evidence may be presented to a grand jury. James Comey's situation is less clear, suggesting Brennan faces the most significant exposure.

Okay, everyone. So there's James Comey, right? The fired FBI director, some call him a deep state hero. I'm incredibly excited to be here, though I'm not sure why everyone else isn't as excited as I am. They're screening questions here. Who killed Epstein? My heart is pounding! It's an honor to see the disgraced and fired FBI director, James Comey, in person. A library staff member asked me to leave, but Comey can stay, right? He didn't disrupt the library, but he disrupted the whole country, a presidential election, and a presidential term! Still, my heart is fluttering that I got to see James Comey.

"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?"

Republicans claim that Comey let me off too easily, but I find it absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else, no matter how much they try to confuse people. It's disturbing to see their efforts to defend this man. This could have been the opportunity to acknowledge his contributions and move on, but they're all in again. I struggle to understand the psychology behind it.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

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.

James Comey is accused of making a death threat against Donald Trump by posting a photo of seashells arranged to read "86 47," which allegedly means "kill Trump." Trump stated Comey knew what it meant and called him a "dirty cop." Tulsi Gabbard believes Comey should be jailed for issuing a call to assassinate the president. The speaker claims Democrats want Trump killed, citing Comey's post, Benny Thompson's legislation to deny Trump Secret Service protection, and the Biden administration restricting Trump's protection. The speaker believes Comey spied on Trump during the Obama administration and that Bill Barr should have prosecuted him. The speaker suggests the FBI should be defunded and its powers curtailed, and a separate entity reporting to the President should investigate the FBI and DOJ. The speaker also suggests investigating the Biden crime family and censorship of Americans. The speaker believes deep state agencies like the FBI and IRS target Americans based on political beliefs and should be shut down.

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

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.

The speaker questions the witness about approximately 50,000 text messages expressing personal beliefs such as "f Trump, stop Trump, impeach Trump." The speaker asks the witness to confirm that these messages were not sent on official FBI devices or time, but the witness admits that many were. The speaker suggests the witness's previous claim of never crossing a line was false, given the numerous messages expressing anti-Trump sentiments on official channels. The speaker questions whether the witness understands why some people don't believe him and why his involvement in investigations concerning President Trump is troubling, considering his expressed desire to "f him, to stop him, to impeach him." The speaker implies this could cast doubt on the integrity of those investigations.

The speaker asserts that former FBI Director James Comey was aware of the meaning of "86 Trump." They claim Comey's assertion that he didn't know the meaning is false, given his background prosecuting mobsters who use similar language. The speaker connects Comey's statement to the "8647" slogan used by anti-Trump protesters, which they describe as a veiled call to assassinate the president. They argue that Comey's actions are dangerous, especially considering past assassination attempts on the president. The speaker accuses Comey and others of issuing a "hit" on President Trump and of hating democracy because they oppose the election of Donald Trump. They believe these individuals are trying to remove Trump from office by any means necessary.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. This could have been the opportunity to say thank you, but they're all in again. I find it hard to fully grasp the psychology behind it.

The speaker believes James Comey should be in jail because of his position of influence and the seriousness with which people regard someone of his stature and experience, especially given how the media has portrayed him. The speaker is very concerned for the president's life, citing previous assassination attempts. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable and imprisoned.

Fox News alert: Tulsi Gabbard releases a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and his intel agencies to sabotage the president-elect Donald Trump, brainwash the electorate, and undermine the legitimacy of an election. There is irrefutable evidence detailing how 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 the 2016 election to help Trump win, selling it to the American people as true. Gabbard obtained a House Intelligence Committee report locked away in a CIA vault for almost a decade. Investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials, and it shows the Obama administration doctored intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Obama wasn’t satisfied with intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. This was a highly unusual move. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed; none knew what the others were doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting the report. It was not routine, and it was rushed to publish before Trump’s inauguration. Nothing was coordinated with other intelligence agencies. Basically, this was “home cooking” for Barack Obama. Four key elements were repeated to form the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took action 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. None of this was ever true; there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations. Senior CIA officials repeatedly refused to traffic in these allegations, but were overruled by CIA director Brennan and FBI director Comey, who insisted they be pushed without verifiable evidence. The Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, lied about sources, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed intelligence counter to their narratives, and even used anonymous Internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA admitted violations of tradecraft standards; a massive pressure campaign came from the top, with unusual directives from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. This is how the Russia hoax was born. Donald Trump knows that the Russians helped him win in 2016. Putin hated Hillary Clinton, with a noted preference for the opponent he disliked least. It was Russia in a systematic effort to interfere in the election and advance Trump’s prospects. The report notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed the Russians hacked voting machines to help Trump win, but the report shows Russians sought to create chaos and undermine democracy; solid intelligence suggested Putin had no preference, and expected Hillary to win, holding compromising dirt on her that he never released. If Putin wanted Trump to win, why didn’t he drop the dirt? There were high-level DNC emails detailing Hillary’s psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and a daily regimen of tranquilizers; Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to create a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump, though Obama and intelligence leaders knew Putin did not collude with Trump and did not direct his people to help Trump win, yet they published it anyway. Obama and his intel spies purportedly cooked intelligence to look like Putin preferred Trump, undermining faith in elections and causing chaos. Do you believe this implicates Obama in criminal behavior? There is a referral of documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate criminal implications. Evidence points to Obama leading the manufacturing of the intelligence assessment. Even two years after the election, Obama pushed a hoax he knew wasn’t true. Brennan, Comey, and others may have liability. Trey Gowdy claims Brennan committed perjury for lying to Congress. When asked who commissioned the Steele dossier, responses indicate the CIA did not rely on it; it was not part of the intelligence community assessment. The broadcast concludes with the assertion that what happened to these officials is not revenge, but accountability, while noting ongoing questions about potential criminal action.

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."