reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

It appears that the efforts by the New York Post and Steve Bannon to dig up dirt on Joe Biden resemble a Russian disinformation campaign, as confirmed by the Trump intelligence community. Russian operative Andrei Derkash and Russian intelligence have been trying to denigrate Biden, with Derkash being identified as a known Russian intelligence operative by the Treasury Department. The warning that Rudy Giuliani is being manipulated by Russian intelligence, followed by the emergence of suspiciously obtained emails, suggests collusion with Russian intelligence by the President. This is collusion in plain sight, without the need for special investigations.

We have found the evidence that proves that this Obama led intelligence community assessment was a contrived document, that was knowingly made using a fake intelligence or substandard intelligence in order to drive this, conclusion that president Obama wanted to see, which was that Russia helped Donald Trump get elected in 2016 or at least aspire to. This directly contradicted every other intelligence community assessment, every other assessment that came from the intelligence community for the last several months prior, both before the twenty sixteen election as well as immediate, immediately after.

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.

The FBI investigated Donald Trump due to concerns about his ties to Russia, based on observable facts indicating a potential threat to national security and the possibility of a crime. The decision to investigate was made because the FBI is obligated to open a case when there's an articulable basis to believe a threat exists, regardless of the subject's position. Contributing factors included Trump publicly undermining the investigation, referring to it as a hoax, and the intelligence community's assessment of Russian support for his campaign. By May 2017, there were ample facts suggesting potential obstruction of justice. The speaker couldn't explain Trump's repeated leaning towards the Russians and defense of Vladimir Putin, but noted that his actions and words were concerning. The investigation grappled with a president who may have committed a federal crime and posed a national security risk. The national security risk related to the counterintelligence case, specifically Trump's potential obstruction of justice to negatively impact the investigation into Russian interference and potential connections with his campaign.

In 2014-2016, Russians hacked the DNC and weaponized social media. In 2015, Felix Sater allegedly approached Michael Cohen about building a Trump Tower in Moscow to get Trump and Putin together and "make our boy president." There were approaches to get Trump and Putin together and to preview hacked emails about Hillary Clinton, including an offer to George Papadopoulos. Trump publicly invited Russia to hack more. The speaker argues this invitation is part of the evidence, while acknowledging Trump isn't the "smartest guy." The speaker also points to Trump's admission to Lester Holt as obstruction of justice. The speaker states there is enough evidence to continue looking into conspiracy to defraud the US, complicated by obstruction. Countering claims of Trump being pro-Russia, the speaker notes actions against Russian interests, such as sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine, opening domestic oil production, killing Russians in Syria, and bombing Assad's government. The speaker also cites "consciousness of guilt evidence" like lies about the June 9 meeting.

Russia hacked the election. President Trump still doesn't sound convinced. If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his victory over Hillary Clinton. Russia is doing it again now with election-related cyber hacking. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and 17 intelligence agencies all conclude that Russia hacked the election. If Donald Trump was colluding with Russia while they were hacking the election, that is completely impeachable. A dossier alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to hack the election. The director of national intelligence, the head of the National Security Agency, and the head of the FBI all say Russia hacked the election. To believe that's wrong, you have to believe they're all involved in an elaborate conspiracy to get Donald Trump.

Donald Trump's campaign chairman was secretly meeting with Russian intelligence, and Russia interfered with the election to attack democracy. One speaker believes Trump is guilty because he knows something about Russia and questions why Trump believed Putin more than U.S. intelligence. Another speaker suggests Trump views the government's role as advancing his political fortunes and destroying enemies, envisioning a second term resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia or Viktor Orban's Hungary. Russia intervened heavily in the 2016 election to elect Trump through a social media campaign and hacking. This is compared to Watergate, with a virtual break-in and a presidential cover-up. There are concerns that Putin and the Kremlin could attempt to intervene in the 2024 election, especially with the war in Ukraine and NATO enlargement. Russia has more at stake and less reason to avoid risk, viewing Trump as a lifeline due to U.S. support for Ukraine. It is expected that Russia will engage, and the question is how much.

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.

Voters in America should decide the president, not Vladimir Putin. The Russians offered, the campaign accepted, and the president used their help. The allegation is that they colluded. Putin doesn't want me to be president. Russia, China, and Iran have been involved in this election. 17 intelligence agencies confirmed it. Fifty former national security officials said Trump is unfit to be commander in chief. The smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. Trump is unwilling to confront Putin, who put bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan. The confidence in this judgment is low to moderate due to various factors.

- 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 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.

We covered the Russia hoax constantly because the FBI was actively investigating it. We reported what unnamed FBI agents were saying. Any viewer would have believed that Trump and Putin conspired in 2016, but that was completely false. Trump went to extraordinary lengths to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, Trump responded that it was the most insulting question he’d ever been asked and the most insulting article ever written about him. He did not directly answer the question, which is a stunning turn of events. Did the President of the United States ever work on behalf of the Russians against American interests?

The hacking on both sides occurred, but the release of DNC information to WikiLeaks was deliberate to help Trump get elected. Evidence suggests Russia's involvement. Trump's claim of being caught in the act is true. Russia has the means and motivation for such actions, making this unprecedented in US electoral history.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

The Durham report is out, confirming the Trump-Russia collusion story was a Democrat-led hoax, with the FBI, CIA, and Obama knowing it all along. Hillary Clinton initiated the collusion narrative to deflect from her email scandal, fabricating the "pee tape" story involving a DNC operative in Russia. The FBI shut down investigations into the Clinton Foundation's foreign money laundering and illegal campaign contributions from overseas. Comey was eager to spy on the Trump campaign, instructing his team to avoid written records. The Obama administration obstructed investigations into Hillary while pushing fake investigations into Trump. The New York Times colluded with the Clinton campaign, even allowing them to review and approve stories. The Biden administration obstructed the Durham report, with FBI agents refusing to cooperate. Despite all this evidence, the media downplays the findings, as no one is being held accountable.

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.

Revelations involving Michael Cohen raise serious questions about the president's legal exposure. The speaker says the president is nervous as time runs out to 'hold himself above the law.' The claim that 'the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in trying to subvert the election' is highlighted, with Manafort and Trump Jr. meeting Russian agents who offered dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's attempt to help them, and 'it's clear that the campaign colluded.' Two developments are noted: 'the president's personal attorney lied to congress, but about the fact that he was personally involved on behalf of the president in arranging business deals with the Russians during the campaign.' And 'the president's campaign manager was involved with communicating with WikiLeaks during the 2016, at the time, you know, well before they served as a conduit to release the the emails that that the Russians'