reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Just 14 days before Donald Trump took the oath of office, the United States intelligence community released its official assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The document concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an intelligence and influence campaign to help Donald Trump win and to damage Hillary Clinton. The assessment carried the full weight of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA, and the CIA presented it to the American public as a definitive judgment by the nation’s intelligence professionals. The assessment was described as unusually political and top-directed rather than ordinary. Outgoing President Barack Obama had personally ordered its creation on December 9, 2016, after Trump’s victory was already secured. The product was said to have been produced by a small team of analysts under tight deadlines and unusual political pressure, framed as a high-profile assessment directed from the top. The transcript claims that what the public did not know—and what was deliberately kept from view—was that Obama had been briefed five months earlier in August 2016 on intelligence that the Hillary Clinton campaign itself was behind an effort to tie Donald Trump to Russia. The transcript states that CIA Director John Brennan entered the White House and informed President Obama that foreign intelligence services, including the Russians, the Dutch, and others, were aware because they intercepted “a plan approved at the highest levels of the Clinton campaign” to manufacture a scandal linking Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin. It says this was a political dirty trick designed to distract from Clinton’s own vulnerabilities. According to the transcript, instead of investigating that intelligence, the Obama administration used presidential authority and the credibility of the intelligence community to “launder” information supporting that narrative into official government doctrine. The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) is described as becoming the foundation for the claim that Trump’s election was illegitimate and tainted by a foreign power. The transcript links that ICA to the justification for appointing a special counsel and to a congressional investigation, characterizing the resulting firestorm as consuming the first years of the Trump presidency. The transcript further asserts that this was not about protecting America or American democracy, but about using the most trusted institutions in the US government to delegitimize an election that the political establishment refused to accept. It claims that the authority of the president and the reputation of the intelligence community were “weaponized” to sell a deception and undermine a duly elected president before he entered the White House. The transcript ends by stating that, in a series, the speaker will examine the ICA in detail: the documents, briefings, suppressed dissents, and a timeline showing how the operation was constructed, describing this as essential to understanding how intelligence was turned into a political weapon and why it must never happen again.

Svetlana Lekova describes how she became a central figure in the Russia collusion narratives targeting Donald Trump, portraying it as a manufactured story built around a false perception of her as a Russian spy and as someone who had an affair with General Michael Flynn. She identifies herself as a British academic, born in the Soviet Union, who studied at the University of Cambridge and taught there. In 2014 she attended a dinner at Cambridge connected to Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) head General Michael Flynn. The invitation came from Sergei Dyilov, former head of MI6, and her longtime professor Christopher Andrew. She was at Cambridge as a postgraduate student, writing a PhD on 1930s Soviet history, and teaching undergraduate courses. The dinner was part of a small group including Flynn, Dyilov, Andrew, and another colleague. Lekova recalls she was the only woman at the table, and the seating arrangement placed Flynn opposite her with other attendees between them; she did not sit next to him, and she did not initiate conversation with him beyond a brief exchange. She did pass a scanned document from the Stalin era to Dyilov, via Flynn’s chair, which impressed him; the document concerned Stalin’s letters to fellow revolutionaries. After the dinner, she photographed the event; Flynn left with his aides, and she stayed with colleagues, returning to a Cambridge hotel with her husband. Lekova explains that, nine months later in December 2016, as preparations for an intelligence assessment were underway, reporters began pressing her about the 2014 dinner and a supposed affair with Flynn. She emphasizes she was nine months pregnant at the time and had not thought of Flynn since the dinner. The media quickly circulated a narrative portraying her as a Russian spy who had an affair with Flynn, using her birthplace and academic specialty as a pretext to link her to Flynn and to Russia. She states that reporters from The Times (UK), The Guardian, The Times, The Financial Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all had her contact information and pursued the story. Lekova says she and her husband responded through lawyers, initially resisting publication, then sending formal denials to the outlets when a propagandistic line—especially involving Stefan Halper, a Cambridge academic who allegedly acted as a source for the stories—emerged. She asserts that Halper was an FBI/ CIA operative who claimed the Cambridge seminar had been penetrated by the Kremlin and that Cambridge had to be protested; Halper later denied being at the Cambridge dinner. She notes her professor Andrew published an article in The Times arguing that Flynn showed attentions to her; Lekova says she confronted him, who refused to withdraw the piece, citing pressure. She claims he was an MI5 officer at the time and close to David Ignatius; Ignatius later met her in England, which she found extraordinary given her recent childbirth. Lekova asserts that the media’s persistence transformed a private dinner into a public indictment, aided by a broader campaign financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Fusion GPS, with funding from George Soros and Reid Hoffman. She says the narrative relied on the credibility of prominent officials and media figures to create a perception of truth. She recounts personal threats, attempts to force her to disappear, and attempts to pressure her to retract or stay silent. The police advised her to move; she explains this was framed as a safety measure because the operation sought to erase her capacity to speak. She connects these events to a larger scheme she calls the Hillary plan: demonize Trump in the media by tying him to Putin, and then have the FBI start an investigation to fuel the narrative. She cites dates: Hillary Clinton allegedly approved the plan on July 26, 2016, and Brennan briefed Obama on July 27; Comey opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016. She contends Downer, an Australian ambassador who attended the Cambridge dinner, provided the crucial tip that launched the investigation, and that Gina Haspel, then with the CIA and later director, was involved via Five Eyes channels. Lekova asserts that the Cambridge gathering in July 2016—attended by Downer, Halper, and others, including Carter Page and Alexander Downer’s cohort—helped craft the so-called Hillary plan for a Russia trap. She insists that Halper and Steele, both tied to FBI and CIA networks, were working on the dossier used to target Trump, with Christopher Steele’s name attached to a report that was actually Hillary-advised. She alleges that journalists Rosenberg (NYT) and Goldman (WSJ) published a version of events that claimed she sought Flynn’s Moscow trip and that Flynn was compromised; she says Halper did not attend the dinner, undermining those reports. Lekova emphasizes that the operation extended beyond the United States, using Five Eyes channels to bypass congressional oversight and keep the investigation out of formal channels. She notes that this was coordinated with media outlets and high-ranking intelligence figures who publicly attacked Flynn and misrepresented her; she argues the purpose was to destroy a man seen as a threat to the political status quo and to influence the 2016 election narrative. She concludes by recalling ongoing investigations and trials that might reveal more about the Hillary plan and its proponents, insisting that the operation—financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Soros, and Hoffman—was broader than the Russia story, and that the media and political elite were part of a concerted effort to neutralize Trump and his allies.

The transcript states that documents contain emails allegedly from the senior vice president of the George Soros Open Society Foundation. These emails quote a Clinton campaign adviser saying, "it will be a long term affair" and to "demonize Putin and Trump," and that, "later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire." Other emails reportedly reveal Hillary Clinton approved the idea of tying Trump and Russia to election interference, describing it as a scheme hoping the allegations would distract people from her own email scandal. The documents purportedly provide clear evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign was behind the Russia hoax and that the FBI knew what the Clinton team was up to, acknowledging that the information they were receiving about the Trump campaign may have come from the Clinton camp. The transcript adds that, despite these alleged disclosures, the Obama intel community forged ahead with a 2017 assessment concluding that Russia aspired to help Trump win the election.

In July 2016, Christopher Steele gave his dossier to the FBI while John Brennan, then head of the CIA, received information about the Hillary Clinton campaign's questionable activities. The evidence related to this was either destroyed or returned to the Clinton Global Initiative. The corruption within the DOJ and FBI is concerning, as an entire investigative team conducting a lawful investigation can be shut down by the Department of Justice. This should be a major story, given the magnitude of the situation.

The Clinton plan intelligence involved creating a scandal linking Trump to Russia. President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Comey were briefed on this, but it was not shared with agents or the FISA court. The Steele dossier has not been corroborated. The FBI's payments to Steele and Twitter were explained as standard practice. The FBI's actions regarding the Hunter Biden laptop and financial institutions were questioned as political. The FBI's reputation was criticized for appearing political. The FBI's request for financial data from Bank of America was brought up.

The speaker briefed President-elect Trump's team on January 6th regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. The intelligence community concluded Russia's goals were to damage American democracy, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. General Clapper informed President Obama of additional material involving alleged sexual activity by Trump in Moscow, potentially compromising him. Obama asked about the briefing plan, assigning it to the speaker due to the FBI's counterintelligence role. During the Trump Tower briefing, attended by figures like Priebus, Flynn, Pence, Pompeo, and Spicer, the team showed less interest in future threats and more in downplaying the report's impact on the election. Clapper confirmed the intelligence community doesn't analyze American elections. The team then began strategizing on how to downplay the information to the media. Following this, the speaker briefed Trump on the compromising material, fearing Trump would perceive it as an attempt to blackmail him, potentially initiating conflict between the FBI and the President. The briefing quickly went awry.

Newly declassified material reveals handwritten notes by former CIA Director John Brennan from July 2016. According to the notes, Brennan briefed Obama and senior officials, suggesting Hillary Clinton's campaign approved a plan to tie Trump to Russian interference in the election, allegedly to distract from her email scandal. The notes outlined concerns about Russian knowledge of this strategy. The speaker claims that in 2016, Brennan, Obama, and their advisors knew Hillary Clinton was running an operation and were worried about Russia finding out about it. The speaker suggests that officials knew early on there was no evidence that General Flynn had done anything wrong, but talked about continuing to investigate him anyway.

Svetlana Lokova recounts a years-spanning, shadowy influence operation that she says began long before the public Russiagate narrative took hold and continued to unfold through high-level intelligence and political circles in the United States and the United Kingdom. She argues that a coordinated conspiracy, involving American and British intelligence figures, political operatives, and foreign partners, was designed to undermine Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, demonize him in the public sphere, and ultimately reshape U.S. politics in ways that persist to today. She explains that the conspiracy starts with the idea of weaponizing Russia as a pretext to derail Trump. In September 2015, Hillary Clinton’s circle tied to Strobe Talbott and to London-based figures including Richard Dearlove and Christopher Andrew decides to dust off “the old Russian handbook” and pursue a plan to run with Russia as the central smokescreen. Svetlana notes that General Michael Flynn, then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under Obama, was already engaging with Russia on matters of security and terrorism, and that Flynn’s Moscow trip in December 2015, arranged through the DIA, became a focal point of later accusations. She emphasizes that the trip was conducted under normal security procedures, with defensive briefings and debriefings required for someone of Flynn’s level of clearance. A key tie-in is the Cambridge operation she herself experienced. In 2015 she was an academic at Cambridge University, where she formed connections with MI6’s Richard Dearlove, Cambridge-based MI6-linked figures, and CIA asset Stefan Halper, who had Cambridge cover as a professor. She describes what she calls “bump” encounters—unexpected introductions that later produced routine reports. One such meeting introduced her to John McLaughlin, then acting CIA director, who allegedly expressed admiration for Russia and who later became a conduit for information within the FBI and CIA. Alan Collar, a London-based FBI liaison (Ligat) and a contact to Cambridge, also emerges as a pivotal figure; Svetlana recalls that Collar later sought to have Halper’s help in various capacities, including a potential PhD placement at Cambridge. Svetlana underscores how the operation leveraged a web of relationships: Christopher Steele in Britain, Halper in the U.S., McLaughlin, and MI6 heads like Dearlove, all part of what she describes as a “newsroom-to-FBI-to-CIA” loop. She explains that Steele and Halper acted as confidential informants for the FBI and CIA, with Steele’s dossier and Halper’s reports forming the backbone of what would become the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. She contends that the plan was not simply to accuse Trump of wrongdoing but to create a narrative of foreign interference—Russian involvement used to undermine Trump’s legitimacy and to give cover for the political takes of the Clinton-Soros alliance. The narrative continues with the infamous 2016 timeline. Svetlana recounts how the Hillary Clinton campaign, with Soros backing and with John Podesta’s circle, leveraged a “two-pronged” approach: demonize Trump through a public narrative of Russian interference and simultaneously seed a parallel set of claims about Trump campaign contacts with Russian intelligence. The plan, she says, was documented in internal emails circulated through Soros-linked channels and high-level Clinton aides. An August 2016 Oval Office meeting reportedly included Barack Obama, Susan Rice, James Comey, and John Brennan; Brennan allegedly noted that Hillary’s plan to distract from her email scandal involved tying Trump to Russia and ordered or supported steps to surface contacts between Trump advisers and Russian intelligence. This, she says, culminated in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, justified by Downer’s May 2016 meeting with George Papadopoulos in London, which fed the FBI’s launch of an overarching inquiry into the Trump campaign. Svetlana emphasizes the mechanics of the operation: a cascade of “two-source” corroboration that failed to exist in reality but was manufactured through coordinated reporting. Stefan Halper and Christopher Steele allegedly provided separate but harmonized lines to the FBI and to journalists (for example, Washington Post and New York Times), with Fusion GPS coordinating research and payments, and with journalists feeding stories into the media while the FBI used those articles as cover to justify surveillance. She notes that the Steele dossier and Halper reports described contacts with Russian figures and asserted Kremlin orders, even while evidence mountains suggested the opposite or were non-existent. The operation allegedly relied on “ambiguous” or “dual-source” reporting to maintain plausible deniability and to keep multiple actors downstream of a single fabrication. Svetlana also describes internal institutional dynamics. She recounts that the Cambridge network included Gina Haspel (then head of the London CIA station) and Mike Morell (a senior CIA official) who allegedly used Cambridge as a front to pursue operations with university cover. The effort, she says, involved the use of “color revolutions” metaphors and methods—funding, organizing demonstrations, and controlling media narratives—through a transatlantic network that included British intelligence (MI6), American agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS), and at times Ukrainian actors. She asserts that the aim was not merely to affect the 2016 election but to create a “fog of war” (as she calls it) to obscure the truth, with the ultimate objective of removing Trump from power or preventing his influence in foreign policy. Two focal consequences are highlighted. First, the emergence of the Russia-collusion frame itself, built on forged or misrepresented evidence about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia and to Russian elites. Second, the use of this frame to drive real-world investigations, media coverage, and political pressure—culminating in the Mueller investigation and attempts to impeach or remove Trump from office. She contends that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and later the intelligence community assessment that purported Russian interference and Trump’s supposed collaboration, were built on manipulated or false premises, with the principal architects’ fingerprints on the evidence and the dissemination of the narrative across intelligence and media channels. In her discussion of the Mar-a-Lago documents and the Florida case surrounding John Brennan and other co-conspirators, Svetlana asserts that declassification by President Trump of Crossfire Hurricane documents demonstrated both the existence of the conspiracy and government overreach. She repeats a central point: the documents show a plan written down by Brennan and other aides to tie Trump to Russia, demonize him, and justify an ongoing investigation to undermine his presidency. She notes that the same players who orchestrated the scheme—Halper, Steele, Downer, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others—were allegedly involved in a broader pattern of off-the-books operations, funding, and information leaks designed to influence U.S. politics and foreign policy outcomes, with foreign allies in Britain and elsewhere participating in the broader maneuver. Svetlana’s overarching message is that accountability is possible but contingent on public attention and political will. She points to subpoenas and grand jury activity around Brennan and others as indications that the origins of the Russia investigation are formally being examined. She stresses that, despite the persistence of the conspiracy narrative, documents and testimony could reveal the truth behind the orchestrated campaign to disrupt the Trump presidency. She calls on the American public to demand accountability and to remain vigilant about the institutions and actors involved in what she describes as a continuing conspiracy, from Crossfire Hurricane to the later narratives surrounding Mueller and impeachment efforts, and into current political disputes. The dialogue closes with a personal appeal from Svetlana to the audience and to Lara Logan: the need to push for transparency and for due process, to scrutinize the roles of the people who allegedly manufactured and propagated the Russia collusion claims, and to insist on accountability for those who oversaw or participated in actions she frames as treasonous or seditious. She credits Lara Logan for ongoing coverage and expresses gratitude for the support of viewers and readers who seek an unflinching account of events, urging continued public scrutiny and a demand for principled governance.

The allegations regarding the politicization of the criminal justice system have been dismissed even by Republican-controlled committees. A significant issue is the potential misuse of intelligence, highlighted by a purported plan from a Clinton adviser to create a scandal linking Trump to Russia. On August 3, 2016, key officials, including President Obama and FBI Director Comey, were briefed on this intelligence, but it was not shared with the agents involved or the FISA court. The Steele dossier has not been corroborated by the FBI. Questions arose about the FBI's financial dealings, including a $1 million offer to Christopher Steele and a $3 million payment to Twitter regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story, raising concerns about political motivations. Additionally, there were inquiries about the FBI requesting customer purchase histories related to the January 6 events.

In July 2016, Christopher Steele gave his dossier to the FBI while John Brennan, then head of the CIA, received information about the Hillary Clinton campaign's questionable activities. The evidence related to this was either destroyed or returned to the Clinton Global Initiative. The corruption within the DOJ and FBI is concerning, as it led to the shutdown of a lawful investigation by the Department of Justice. This should have been a major news story, given the extent of the corruption involved.

The Trump-Russia collusion story was allegedly a hoax known by Democrats, the FBI, the CIA, and Barack Obama. John Ratcliffe approved the release of documents to the DOJ regarding the Obama administration's oversight of the Trump-Russia investigation. John Brennan briefed Obama in 2016 on Hillary Clinton's plan to link Trump to Russia. John O'Connor claims the Clinton campaign, not Trump, worked with Russia. Critics allege abuse of power and potential criminal activity by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were responsible, and Obama and Biden may have known. A CIA memo notes Russians believed Hillary Clinton tried to stir up scandal to distract from her email server. The FBI allegedly shut down investigations into the Clinton Foundation and illegal contributions to Hillary's campaign from overseas. James Comey allegedly pushed to spy on the Trump campaign. The Obama administration allegedly prevented investigations into Hillary and greenlit fake investigations into Trump. Obama allegedly lied about not discussing pending investigations with the Attorney General or FBI director. The Biden administration allegedly obstructed the Durham report. The New York Times allegedly had meetings with the Clinton campaign. The Durham report is considered devastating to the FBI and exonerates Donald Trump to a degree. Some believe those involved should be prosecuted for misusing the CIA and FBI.

The transcript reports that Tulsi Gabbard released a House Intel report alleging a conspiracy by President Obama and U.S. intelligence agencies to undermine the 2016 election and Donald Trump. It claims Obama ordered a new intelligence community assessment on Russia’s interference, handpicking five CIA analysts to draft a rushed, siloed report with only one person in charge. The four elements cited as the basis of the Russia hoax are: Putin wanted Trump to win; Putin took action to help Trump win; the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. It asserts there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations, senior CIA officials refused to traffic in them, but were overruled by Brennan and Comey, who allegedly cherry-picked, misquoted, and suppressed countervailing intelligence, including anonymous postings. The document alleges Obama continued promoting the hoax, mentions potential criminal implications, and states the Steele dossier was not used by the CIA. It ends with accountability rhetoric.

In the summer of 2016, our government received intelligence suggesting that Secretary Clinton had approved a plan to link President Trump to Russia. Director Brennan briefed the President, Vice President, Attorney General, and FBI Director on this important intelligence, which was then put into a referral memorandum. Director Comey and Agent Strzok received this memorandum, but it was not shared with the FISA court, the lawyers preparing the FISA application, or the agents working on the Crossfire Hurricane case. When the referral memo was shown to one of the agents, he had never seen it before and became upset because it was important information that had been kept from him.

The Clinton plan intelligence referred to information received around the same time as the Australian intelligence. It suggested that one of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy advisers had a plan to link Donald Trump to the Russians. On August 3, 2016, Director Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and the Attorney General about this intelligence. Director Comey was present during the briefing. However, this information was not provided to the agents working on the case or to the secret FISA Court.

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.

There is irrefutable evidence that detail how president Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. The Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was a massive pressure campaign that came right from the top. Obama and his spy chiefs knew that Putin didn't prefer Trump over Hillary, but they cooked the intelligence to make it look like he did.

- 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.

The transcript states that Russia claimed to have very, very damaging information—high level DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton's physical and mental health and DNC leaders questioning whether, if elected, she would be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. Russia had this information. If they wanted to swing the election for Donald Trump, they would have released it in September or October 2016 at a pivotal time to swing momentum in Donald Trump’s direction and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did not do that deliberately. They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable president of The United States. They didn’t think Trump could win like a lot of other people. And so they were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her inaugurate expected inauguration in order to once again sow chaos within The United

President Obama tasked us with the intelligence community assessment, which led to the ongoing Special Counsel Mueller investigation. However, neither President Obama nor I knew about the FBI investigation on Trump. I personally found out about it as a private citizen through the Washington Post. It's important to note that the White House traditionally does not involve itself in such matters. The Republicans in Congress are focusing on the dossier, but they had no involvement in it.

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.

The Clinton plan intelligence referred to information received around the same time as the Australian intelligence. It suggested that one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers had a plan to link Donald Trump to the Russians. On August 3, 2016, Director Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and the Attorney General about this intelligence. Director Comey was present during the briefing. However, this information was not given to the agents working on the case or presented to the secret FISA Court.

According to declassified documents, there was intelligence information received around the same time as information from the Australians, indicating a purported plan by one of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy advisors to create a scandal tying Donald Trump to Russia. Then-Director Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence, the FBI (Director Comey), the Attorney General, and others about this intelligence on August 3, 2016. A congressman stated that the Steele dossier was entered into the congressional record, but that there is not a single substantive piece of information in the dossier that has ever been corroborated by the FBI or to his knowledge anyone else. Another congressman questioned why the FBI allegedly offered Christopher Steele $1,000,000 to verify the dossier and then allegedly offered $3,000,000 to Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, suggesting the FBI was planning elections. Director Ray responded that payments to social media companies are for costs in responding to legal processes, as per longstanding federal law. Another congressman asked Director Ray if the FBI asked financial institutions to turn over customers' debit and credit card purchase history in the Washington D.C. area for January 5th-6th, 2021. Director Ray stated he did not know the answer.

A report alleges that President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of a false intelligence community assessment to promote the narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win. According to the report, Obama ordered the CIA to create a new assessment after Trump's victory, a highly unusual move. CIA Director Brennan allegedly handpicked analysts who were siloed and rushed to publish the assessment before Trump's inauguration. The assessment claimed that Putin wanted Trump to win, took action to help him, had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier), and that Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The report claims there was no reliable intelligence to support these allegations, but Brennan and Comey pushed them anyway. It is claimed that the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, lied about sources, and suppressed counter-narrative intelligence. The report suggests that Putin didn't care who won, but had compromising information on Hillary Clinton that he never released. It is claimed that Obama and his spy chiefs knew Putin didn't prefer Trump or collude with him, but presented it otherwise. The report suggests Obama undermined faith in elections and caused chaos, doing what the enemy wanted. The documents have been referred to the DOJ and FBI to investigate potential criminal implications for Obama and others, including Brennan and Comey, who allegedly lied to Congress.