TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"The American people to believe that? Do you think they're stupid? No." "What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform, combating the weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you." "And we have countless proven you to be alive in Russia Gate in January 5." "You are the biggest put on a show so you can raise money for your charade." "You are a political buffoon at best." "But all you care about is a child sex predator that was prosecuted by a prior administration, and the Obama Justice department and the Biden justice department did squat." "And what did president Trump do? Bring new charges courageously." "33,000 pages of information to you." "I challenge you to say anything credibly to the truth." "Go ahead and run to the cameras where you wanna go now."

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.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

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.

Have you ruled out a pardon for yourself or family members? Yes, I have. What would I pardon myself for? I have no intention of pardoning myself because I didn't do anything wrong. Could you comment on Meta's decision to...

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 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.

I am deeply troubled by your responses today. You need to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You avoided answering that question when asked by Senator Durbin. Additionally, you should clearly state that those involved in the January 6th insurrection who committed violence should not be pardoned. I don’t have to say what you want me to say. I speak the truth and won’t say anything just to gain confirmation. I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

I never sent or received classified information. Clinton's emails contained classified material. She used multiple devices, not just one. Work-related emails were not all returned. Clinton's lawyers did not individually read all emails. Despite potential violations, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. Trump may have obstructed justice according to Mueller's report.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

- 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.

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.

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 special counsel found no evidence that any US person or Trump campaign official conspired or knowingly coordinated with Russia's interference efforts. While criminal charges were brought against Russian nationals, the key point is that collusion was not found. This supports what the president has maintained. The White House, the president, and his attorneys should be pleased with this report. After two years of asserting there was no Russia collusion, the president is now backed up by Mueller. The evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. This conclusion is supported by the special counsel's extensive investigation, which included over 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, and interviews with approximately 500 witnesses.

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.

You continuously discussed the Russia investigation as if it were undeniable truth, leading viewers to believe in a conspiracy between Trump and Putin in 2016, which was completely false. President Trump has taken significant steps to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, he found the question insulting and did not provide a direct answer. This situation raises concerns about whether the President has acted against American interests.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

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.

Are you prepared to say under oath that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020? President Biden is the president of the United States, having been duly sworn in after a peaceful transition of power. Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024. Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had the necessary electoral votes to be elected president in 2020? As a prosecutor, I accept that Joe Biden is the president. I witnessed many things during my time in Pennsylvania as an advocate for the campaign. While I accept the results, I believe we should all want election integrity and ensure our elections are free and fair, following the rules and laws. I think that question deserves a yes or no, and your lengthy answer suggests you weren't prepared to answer yes.