TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the ongoing investigation into former President Trump and expresses concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department. They argue that the department is filled with partisan Democrats and questions the transparency and accountability of the investigations. The speaker highlights the importance of knowing who is working on these investigations and criticizes the department for withholding this information. They mention previous investigations into Special Counsel Mueller's team, which revealed anti-Trump bias. The speaker concludes by stating their intention to sue for the release of the requested information and emphasizes the need for oversight and accountability in upholding the rule of law.

President Trump stated that a corrupt group within the American government weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies. One speaker argues that one doesn't have to be a member of MAGA to acknowledge legitimate grievances regarding Peter Strzok, Lisa Page texts, FISA abuse, and the Alvin Bragg case. Another speaker asserts that Merrick Garland followed the facts and law, and grand juries in Florida and DC believed there was enough evidence to indict Donald Trump on 44 counts. Jack Smith believes he would have been successful in two cases if Trump had not been elected president. The speaker claims the charges were dropped only because he was president. The first speaker clarifies that the initial concerns were about the Russiagate investigation and the Alvin Bragg case, while the second speaker addressed the Jack Smith investigation.

The discussion centers on whether high-ranking Democrats abused their intelligence positions to convince Americans that Russia stole the 2016 election. One participant alleges a conspiracy led by Obama, claiming Democrats couldn't believe Trump won and wanted to delegitimize his presidency. Counterarguments emphasize that a bipartisan committee, including Marco Rubio, concluded Russia interfered, but didn't change votes. The conversation explores whether the issue is the intelligence community's conclusions or public belief. One participant defends Obama's actions, citing his transition with Trump. Another claims Obama was the architect of the Russian collusion narrative, feeding fake intelligence to the media. A counterpoint is made that Trump acted differently when Biden won. One person suggests the conversation is a distraction tactic employed by Donald Trump.

My colleagues are trying to undermine and defund the FBI because they are investigating Donald Trump. Attacking the FBI and independent journalists undermines our democracy. By attacking these institutions, they can violate the law without consequences. The credibility of the FBI is being eroded by those on the other side of the aisle, and this needs to stop.

The speakers discuss their concerns about the investigations against the former president, suggesting that they may unintentionally or intentionally benefit him. They agree that any charges against him should be serious and supported by strong evidence, which they believe is lacking in these cases. They also mention the negative optics of pursuing legal action during an election without substantial evidence. One speaker compares the situation to that of a non-democratic country. Overall, they express skepticism and criticize the handling of the investigations.

They accuse you of what they're doing, using distraction techniques to fearmonger about a potential Trump win. Former intelligence officials are on edge. The speaker calls them scumbags for falsely accusing Trump of Russian ties. They demand an investigation into the officials. The speaker believes the deep state is real and wants accountability for election interference. The conversation shifts to the whistleblower and retribution concerns.

The attorney investigating the coup against the speaker will not announce any results before the election, which is disappointing. The speaker believes it's a terrible thing and the biggest political scandal in the country's history. The speaker expresses frustration with Republicans, stating that if it were the other side, many people would be in jail. The speaker claims to have fully declassified everything and criticizes a report on Comey by Mr. Horowitz, an Obama appointee. The speaker finds the report to be extremely negative and unlike anything they have seen before.

The speaker learned about the consideration for revocation of his clearance without prior official notification. He believes the clearance system is being abused to attack political opponents and critics of the president, raising First Amendment concerns. He questions if loyalty to President Trump is becoming a clearance criterion. The speaker raises concerns about potential retaliation against political opponents, including the possibility of losing retirement pay or medical benefits. CNN reports the president is pleased with the situation, viewing it as a way to promote the "deep state" argument and distract from the silence surrounding the meeting with Vladimir Putin. The White House is accused of politicizing intelligence. The speaker describes experiencing "whiplash" from the president's statements and corrections regarding Russian interference. He believes the president's inability to accept Russian meddling stems from concerns about the legitimacy of his election. He emphasizes the distinction between Russian meddling and collusion, stressing that Russian meddling is a profound threat that the president doesn't consistently recognize.

If an attorney general is influenced by the president to open investigations on political opponents, it can be damaging even without finding any wrongdoing. The mere existence of an investigation can harm a person's reputation and democracy as a whole.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled new evidence alleging that former president Barack Obama and top aides in the Obama administration conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The claim is that Obama, publicly pretending to engage in a peaceful transfer of power, privately went to great lengths to sow discord and sabotage his successor. The newly released evidence from the DNI supposedly confirms that the Obama administration manufactured and politicized intelligence used to justify baseless smears against President Trump in an effort to delegitimize his victory before he took the oath of office. The speaker asserts that President Trump never had anything to do with Russia and that the Russia collusion hoax was a massive fraud perpetuated on the American people from the beginning, with Obama and others—including former CIA director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and many others—knowing the truth. The DNI Gavrid's report is said to corroborate what was already known: there was no collusion or corruption, except on the part of Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time. The Russia hoax is described as a blatant lie, manufactured by Democrat political operatives, signed off on by Obama, and leaked to the news media to launch a witch hunt against President Trump in his first administration. Allies of the president, including his son Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some purportedly having their lives destroyed due to the lie. It is claimed that the president’s first two years in office were haunted by this fake distraction, consuming resources, time, and political capital needed to debunk the lies. Nearly ten years later, the declassification of documents by director Gabbard is said to reveal the truth, vindicating President Trump, his family, and their allies who were smeared with defamatory lies. President Trump is asserted to have been right from the beginning, with justice now appearing to be served. New, damning evidence is described as implicating those who tried to sabotage a duly elected president and caused grave material harm to the republic. The claim is credited to CIA director Ratcliffe and committee chairman Rick Crawford, referencing a newly declassified 2020 report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which the DNI has declassified, stating that the intel community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect President Trump in 2016. It is asserted that Russia was actively preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory, but, at Obama’s unusual direction, the intel community published implausible intelligence suggesting otherwise to sabotage the incoming president. The transcript condemns reporters at legacy outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, claiming they were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for perpetuating the hoax. It calls for those awards to be stripped from the journalists who propagated political disinformation in service of the Democratic party and those in the intelligence community who handed out out-of-context and fake intelligence to push a false political narrative.

People are trying to say that the FBI is corrupt and that the Steele dossier is discredited, and that the investigation into Russian interference is based on nonsense. However, the Steele dossier was taken seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp. There is a big move to undermine the Mueller investigation by calling it names. The American people were attacked, and that can't happen again. It is unpatriotic to try to stop an investigation from going forward so we can make sure it doesn't happen again.

He's provoking the intelligence community by criticizing them, which is unwise. They have ways to retaliate. The intelligence community is upset with how he's treated them. We rely on them for information, especially regarding Russian hacking.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

I've never talked to my son about George Jackson. But what I do know is that Trump deserves investigation for violating presidential norms. He's been on the phone with a foreign leader, possibly trying to intimidate them. Trump is doing this because he's afraid I'll beat him in the election, and he's using his power to smear me. However, everyone who has looked into it has found nothing. The focus should be on asking the right questions about Trump's actions.

The speaker discusses a recently released indictment and its implications with Director Clapper. Clapper states the indictment validates the intelligence community's assessment from January 2017, which outlined Russian objectives: sowing discord, undermining faith in the American political system, hurting Hillary Clinton, and helping Donald Trump. The speaker notes the President has known about this for a year but continues to call it a hoax. Clapper expresses concern over the lack of response to the Russian threat, stating the President is singular and different in this regard, which poses a peril to the country. He says the administration hasn't punished Russia or developed a government-wide defense strategy. The speaker suggests the President views any discussion about Russia as an attack on his legitimacy, a weakness foreign leaders can exploit. Clapper confirms this arose during the January 6th briefing, leading to attacks on the intelligence community. He notes the President's recent tweet focused on himself rather than the threat to the country and believes more indictments may follow.

- 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 speaker expresses concern about the fear people have of their own government and criticizes the Department of Justice for their handling of investigations. They mention the Durham report and the slow progress on investigations related to Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden. The speaker also raises concerns about corruption in the Obama administration and the lack of action from the Biden administration. They believe that the Department of Justice is covering up information and allowing foreign propaganda to influence the country. The speaker concludes by asking if the Department of Justice believes that only eligible US citizens should be voting in elections.

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

The speakers discuss new information from the DNI's office and the Trump administration regarding the origins of Russiagate, including that the president-elect was blocked from accessing the original report. One speaker believes that Tulsi Gabbard's declassification and CIA director John Ratcliffe's assessment reveal that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election in a way that influenced the outcome. They claim Barack Obama and senior officials like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey conspired to alter intelligence to delegitimize Trump. The speaker calls for a bicameral commission with prime-time hearings to investigate the matter, subpoenaing Brennan, Clapper, and others to testify under oath. They mention referrals to the Justice Department related to Brennan and suggest further referrals from Gabbard's findings. The speaker advocates for a joint bipartisan congressional investigation into figures like Clapper, Brennan, Obama, Biden, and Comey.

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, released new evidence alleging that former President Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The speaker asserts that while Obama publicly appeared to support a peaceful transfer of power, privately he took steps to sow discord and sabotage Trump, including manufacturing and politicizing intelligence that was used to justify baseless smears against the new president. The claim is that Trump had no involvement with Russia and that the Russia collusion narrative was a massive fraud, known to Obama and others involved, including former CIA director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and others. The speaker reiterates that DNI Gabbard’s report confirms there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, attributing any wrongdoing to Barack Obama and the “weaponized” intelligence agencies of the time. The Russia hoax is characterized as a blatant lie manufactured by Democrat political operatives, approved by Obama, and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump in his first administration. Allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some personally harmed by the false narrative. The speaker notes that much of this occurred during Trump’s first two years in office, consuming vast resources, time, and political capital to debunk the allegations at the highest levels of government. According to the speaker, nearly a decade later, declassification of documents by DNI Gabbard, alongside contributions from CIA Director Ratcliffe and committee Chairman Rick Crawford, supports a newly declassified 2020 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This report reportedly found the intel community did not have direct information that Vladimir Putin sought to help elect Trump in 2016; instead, Russia was allegedly preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory. The narrative claims that, at the time, Obama’s unusual stance led the intel community to publish implausible intelligence to sabotage the incoming president. The speaker asserts this constitutes one of the greatest political scandals in American history, noting that legacy media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post were rewarded with Pulitzer Prizes for propagating political disinformation. The claim is made that those awards should be stripped from journalists who disseminated out-of-context and false intelligence to push a political narrative in service of the Democrats and associated intelligence actors.

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.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled new evidence alleging that former president Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The private actions contrasted with publicly presented peaceful transfer of power, as Obama allegedly sought to sow discord and sabotage his successor. The released evidence purportedly confirms that the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence that was later used to justify baseless smears against President Trump in an effort to delegitimize his victory before he took the oath of office. The speaker asserts that President Trump never had anything to do with Russia, and that the Russia collusion hoax was a massive fraud perpetuated from the start, with Obama and others allegedly knowing the truth. The speaker names several officials as part of the alleged scheme: former CIA director John Brennan, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and other officials. The report is said to corroborate that there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, but rather wrongdoing by Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time. The Russia hoax is described as a blatant lie, devised by Democrat political operatives, approved by Obama, and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump and his first administration. Allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some having their lives destroyed due to the allegations. The speaker notes that the first two years of Trump’s presidency were overshadowed by this fake distraction, with extensive resources, time, and political capital spent debunking the lies from the highest levels of government. Nearly ten years later, declassification of documents by the director is said to reveal the truth, vindicating Trump, his family, and allies who were smeared. The speaker claims there is now damning evidence implicating those who attempted to sabotage a duly elected president and harmed the republic. Thanks to work by CIA Director Ratcliffe and committee Chairman Rick Crawford, a newly declassified 2020 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, declassified by DNI Gabbard, allegedly finds that the intel community did not have direct information that Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Trump in 2016; rather, Russia was preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory, but was allegedly steered by Obama’s unusual direction to publish implausible intelligence suggesting otherwise to sabotage the incoming president. The speaker describes this as one of the greatest political scandals in American history and criticizes reporters from legacy outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, who allegedly continued to propagate the hoax, saying they were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for disinformation. The call is made for those awards to be stripped from journalists who produced disinformation in service of the Democrat Party and certain intelligence officials.

It is important to put the investigation into Trump and his associates aside. There is no denying that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump, hurt Hillary Clinton, and destabilize democracy. According to public testimony before Congress by intelligence professionals, this interference is a clear and present danger to the country. If the roles were reversed and Hillary Clinton had won, she would have stopped at nothing to find out what happened and ensure it never happens again. She would have stood up in front of the country and said that even if it advantaged her, she would not rest until the truth was uncovered.

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

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."