reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the Russia-Ukraine war is an extension of Russiagate, which desensitized the Democratic party to hating Russia. According to the speaker, Democrats needed an explanation for Trump's victory besides their own failures, and initially blamed Cambridge Analytica. When that didn't satisfy, the "Russia narrative" emerged. The speaker says Russiagate led Democrats to view Russia negatively, beyond a normal Western perspective, as if Trump were a Kremlin attaché. Thus, after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Democrat party, formerly anti-war, showed a subdued response to funding the war. The speaker suggests this is because Putin became an acceptable villain, conflated with Trump, due to Russiagate. Another speaker adds that many were pro-Russia when it was Soviet because it was anti-Christian, but turned against it when it became Orthodox again. The speaker concludes that skepticism about sending money to Ukraine, once a left-wing position, was subdued because Putin became an acceptable villain for the Democrat party.

In the electoral process, there is an absence of checks and balances in Russia. This has led to one man making the decision to launch an unjustified and brutal invasion of Ukraine, or Iraq, as he mistakenly mentioned.

The speaker claims there is black and white evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and then sought to destroy the Trump administration after their candidate, Hillary Clinton, wasn't elected. They allege the CIA interfered in the 2020 election with the 51 former intel agents who dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. The speaker asserts that US intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice interfered in past elections and will interfere in the 2024 election to protect themselves. They believe the Durham investigation and congressional investigations provide hard evidence of this interference. The speaker suggests individuals involved are terrified of a Republican president and attorney general investigating and charging them with crimes committed over the last eight years. They claim these individuals were aware of their wrongdoing and avoided putting anything in writing.

FBI director James Comey stated that interference in U.S. politics continues. Despite diplomatic meetings where leaders appear friendly, there is ongoing interference in democracy. Recent events, like the interference in the French elections, highlight this issue. Tactics include espionage, cyber operations, propaganda, and manipulating social media, which undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.

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."

Tulsi Gabbard is described as "doing a great job" in the speaker’s view, with an aside that includes the word "Whisk." The speaker notes that Gabbard "took a lot of heat two days ago because she went in at Pam's insistence," and that she "looked at votes that wanna be checked out from Georgia." The question is raised aloud: "They say, why is she doing it? Right, Pam? Why is she doing it?" The response given is that the reason is "Because Pam wanted her to do it." The speaker emphasizes the motive by stating, "And you know why? Because she's smart." The dialogue then references a belief that others suggested the action was tied to Gabbard’s position or stance, saying, "they said, well, this has to do her position. Has to do it's really not so, but her position has to do with international." The speaker counters that line of thinking by invoking a different narrative about international affairs and election interference. The speaker recalls the longstanding chorus that has claimed Russia, Russia, Russia has been meddling in elections, noting, "the same people that said that, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia has been screwing our elections." The speaker then contemplates the possibility that Russia "had something to do with it," but follows with, "They say, no. No. Russia didn't have." The implication is that the narrative on foreign interference has shifted, leading to the assertion that "now they're saying Russia had nothing to do with it." The speaker adds a broader hypothetical, stating, "Because if I say Russia, that it's perfectly fine. But you could add China and about five other countries to it." Amid these discussions, the speaker reiterates praise for Tulsi Gabbard: "But she's done a great job, and Pam has done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it both." The closing lines suggest a personal note about not having seen the person in a while: "I haven't seen you in a couple of times. And I have one of..." The remainder of the sentence is cut off in the transcript.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

I found it interesting that Putin didn't criticize Joe Biden or NATO during our conversation. As an American, it would feel strange to badmouth the American president to a foreign leader, even if I have doubts about Biden's presidency. It just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Voters, not Vladimir Putin, should decide who the American president is. The Russians offered, the campaign accepted, and the president used Russian help. The dossier alleges collusion and assistance. Vladimir Putin doesn't want one of the speakers to be president. Russia, China, and Iran have been involved in the election. Seventeen intelligence agencies have confirmed this. Fifty security officials who served in Republican administrations have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander in chief. The smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. The president is unwilling to confront Putin, even when Russia puts bounties on the heads of American soldiers in Afghanistan. There are several factors that contributed to the low to moderate confidence in the judgment.

Vladimir Putin recently made controversial claims about Western elites, suggesting they have been involved in horrific practices for centuries. While some question his true affiliations, given his past connections to globalist organizations, it's possible he genuinely believes his statements. If that's the case, there's support for his perspective. The assertion is made that he seems to understand the realities of Western leaders, whom he describes in extreme terms. This view has gained traction among certain groups, leading to a belief that many Western leaders are involved in sinister activities.

The speaker discusses whether the Russian campaign successfully divided the United States or if the divisions already existed and were exploited. They explain that Putin takes advantage of existing weaknesses and divisive narratives. They emphasize that the campaign to undermine democracy did not start or end with the 2016 election and that it extends beyond elections. The speaker believes that Putin's main objective is to weaken the US, but they also think that his primary audience is his own population. They mention the importance of the justice system and how Putin has been undermining public trust in it. The speaker has been raising awareness among judges about this campaign and has been working to defend against disinformation and cybersecurity threats.

We will inform our colleagues about Russia's actions in the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia. We plan to make 2017 a year of offense against Putin, who we believe hacked our elections and is undermining democracy worldwide. We advocate for new sanctions targeting Putin personally, his energy and banking sectors. We just visited Ukraine, where we witnessed the impact of Russian interference. We will push for tougher sanctions on Russia for attacking the US through hacking, treating it as an act of war. We urge stronger sanctions on Russia for their attack on the US.

I don't believe Donald Trump will be president again. If Putin is betting on that, he will be in for a surprise. That's my first point.

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.

Vladimir Putin recently made controversial claims about Western elites, suggesting they've engaged in horrific practices for centuries. While some question his true affiliations, given his past ties to organizations like the World Economic Forum, it's possible he genuinely believes his statements. If that's the case, there's support for his perspective. The idea that Western leaders are involved in sinister activities, including accusations of pedophilia, has gained traction among certain groups. This narrative paints Putin as a figure who appears to understand the darker truths about Western leadership.

The war right now happening between Russia, Ukraine, and the West support of it actually was an extension of Russiagate. "Russiagate desensitized the Democrat party to hate Russia." The Russia narrative "came ex nihilo." "Putin became an acceptable villain for the Democrat party." "That all goes back to Russiagate." Our intel services are actually more about picking winners and losers in American elections and to thwart the will of pop sovereignty. "Obama personally ordered an intel report"—"Russia behind this election?" The report said no. "Russia was not behind this election, did not manipulate votes." FBI and CIA seem to be working on the same page. "The insurance policy" and "Dossier paid for by the Democrat party with Clinton funds to then illegally be able to spy on the Trump campaign." Rod Rosenstein was running the entire DOJ. This is the fourth branch of government—"unelected, unaccountable."

Speaker 0 argues that sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of our elections undermines democracy, calls it dangerous, and says it is work that benefits adversaries because democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters and that those who occupy power were chosen by the people. Speaker 1 states that every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians hacked the DNC, and that the information released was the consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels; the CIA assesses that it was done purposefully to tilt the election toward a particular candidate, which is not a surprise, and this was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Hillary campaign.

I don't believe Donald Trump will become president. If that's what Putin is hoping for, he will be in for a surprise. That's my first point.

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.

Russia uses missiles and cyber attacks to interfere with elections and hide truths. They host events like the World Cup to distract from human rights abuses. Trump's support helps Russia weaken the world.

The speaker claims to have evidence that the FBI interfered in the 2016 election and then tried to destroy the Trump administration when Hillary Clinton lost. They also accuse the CIA of interfering in the 2020 election by dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. The speaker believes that there will be election interference in 2024, as there have been no consequences for previous interference. They suggest that if a Republican president and attorney general are elected, they will investigate and charge those responsible for election interference. The speaker believes that the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are scared of this possibility.

Putin was unhappy with Speaker 1 for raising concerns about the unfairness of Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections. Putin is paranoid about mass movements near Russia that could lead to democracy, closer ties with the EU, or NATO membership. The speaker believes Russia is still interfering with U.S. democracy by influencing opinions and election systems. She believes she was an obstacle to Russia's plans to undermine U.S. democracy and impose authoritarian control, and that Russia wanted to remove her to achieve other goals. Russia is still stirring up trouble and influencing people on social media, including efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act to cause political disruption. Electing a president was only part of Russia's plan. Putin aims to undermine democracies using money, blackmail, and inducements to bend political and business leaders to his will. The speaker doesn't know if Trump is a witting or unwitting tool of Putin, but believes Putin is playing a long game to undermine democracies.

We will inform our colleagues about Russia's actions in the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia. We believe Putin hacked our elections and is undermining democracy worldwide. We advocate for new sanctions targeting Putin personally, as well as his energy and banking sectors. We must resist Putin's influence while supporting our allies. Our recent visit to Ukraine highlighted the consequences of Russian interference, which we also experienced in our own election. We will push for stronger sanctions against Russia, treating their hacking as an attack. We urge our colleagues to address their financial institutions and other aspects of their economy.