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.

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.

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.

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.

Congresswoman Pelosi asks, “Are you at all concerned that the new January 6 committee will find you liable for that day? Right here.” The other participant replies, “I can.” Pelosi then asks, “Are you at all concerned about the new January 6 committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you re refuse the National Guard on January 6?” The respondent retorts, “Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist?” Pelosi concludes, “The American people wanna know. We still have questions. Thank you.”

Is it standard for your department to meet with dark money groups secretly? I can't speak to actions taken by the former deputy secretary, who is no longer with us. But you are the secretary of the interior, correct? Yes, I am. Do the people here work for you? They work with me. So you're not in charge? I provide vision and direction. Do you take responsibility for the department? Yes, I do. Then why are your leaders meeting with dark money groups off the books? This is the first I've heard of this. I can't comment on my deputy's actions. What did they gain from canceling leases at their request? I don't know who that individual is. You seem unaware of your department's issues. We have a corruption problem in your department.

Director Ray, do you want to reauthorize FISA to spy on the Trump campaign again?

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.

Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation because his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process. The speaker has not spoken directly with the whistleblower but would like to. Acclaimed Republican Intelligence Committee members question this.

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

Is this potentially the biggest setup in the history of the country? It could be. This might be one of the greatest crimes against the American people. It's crucial to uncover the truth, especially regarding the cover-ups that occurred after January 6th. We also need to address the Republicans involved in those cover-ups. I understand it's challenging to confront these issues within your own party, but we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. I will hold you to that commitment.

A congressman is asked if he filed impeachment articles against President Trump to get out of nearly $800,000 of campaign debt, given his history of scamming people. He is asked if he is scamming the American people. The congressman responds that there have been unconstitutional activities that need to be addressed. He is then questioned again about his history of scamming people and his campaign debt. Finally, he is told that if he hates President Trump so much, he should go back to India.

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.

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.

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

You mentioned that the White House will not interfere, but the incoming president believes he can direct the Justice Department. If he suggests investigating a political enemy, would you comply? I wish we could have discussed this in a meeting. It's essential for the attorney general to remain independent. While I haven't heard the president make such a request, I recognize that many Americans have lost faith in the DOJ. If confirmed, my priority will be to restore integrity to the department and ensure justice is served fairly. Let's move on to your current responsibilities as attorney general.

Is this potentially the biggest setup in U.S. history? It could be one of the greatest crimes against the American people. It's crucial to uncover the truth, especially regarding the cover-ups after January 6th. What about the Republicans involved in those cover-ups? Addressing that is challenging since it's within your own party. However, we will follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the implications. I’ll hold you to that commitment.

Of the thousands of lawyers that you could hire to help you through this process, why Marc's aid? Mark Zaid is a leading opponent of president Trump, notorious for his online activity that is very anti Trump. He was heavily involved in president Trump's first impeachment. and furthermore, he advised his clients to leave the country after president Trump won the twenty twenty four election. So I actually was not aware of of any of those, details associated with Mark Notorious for his anti Trump activity and involvement. And you hire you hired that guy. Mark Zaid and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics. So you're claiming to be naive about Mark Zaid's political activity as he sits behind you advising you for this hearing I have not had That's astonishing.

Congressman, why did the J6 committee delete their files? I have no idea. It's all in the bipartisan report by Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who chairs the Republican conference. Do you think Liz Cheney is a true Republican? Well, you tell me. You seem to be a true Republican. And what about Governor DeSantis? He was a Democrat, then a Reform Party member, and independent, but he's a con man and your boss. Thank you for your input. Are you sure you don't want to answer about the committee's handling of Donald Trump? Thank you, congressman.

The speaker claims that USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama administration. The memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID. The speaker alleges that USAID was involved in regime change abroad and, like censorship tools used abroad, helped create a predicate for Trump's impeachment. The speaker suggests this is one of many revelations to come.

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