7-24-25 - 7am - The Russia Documents

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
My favorite dessert is brownie. Okay, congratulations, that made that
brought up that brought up more phlam and congestion. So
did you go where you get? The house will just
blow his nose on.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
The chocolate chip brownie white chocolate chips. So what kind
of brownie are.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
The little but I do it this. I like my
brownies gooey.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Yeah, what do you think of the corners? The little crust?

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Oh, but that's isn't that interesting because the corners that
are that are usually pretty crisp are good. But I
like the other party exactly.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
I want a very crispy corner, but I still want
it's very contradictory brownies.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
Yes, well, I'm just I'm a ball of contradictions. So
one of the other things that happened while I was
absent is Toulci Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, released
a whole bunch or announced the release of a bunch
of information and then kind of left to some degree,
he left us to interpret what it was that she

(01:10):
had released. I did at least go through some of
that stuff. But before we get to what she did,
there is a little bit of a kerfuffle going on
between the Senate Intelligence Committee and a report they made
about the Russia collusion OAKS in which Marco Rubio now

(01:35):
Secretary of State, and I'm just gonna paraphrase here, but
he made a statement to the effect that there is
no doubt that Russia interfered with the election, or maybe
it was even attempted to interfere. But he didn't say
anything about on behalf of whom, or what the objective was,

(01:57):
or how they did it, just that Russia tried to
interfere with the election. I would say that is probably
true in every election. Russia probably tries to influence as
much as they can, either directly or indirectly, all of
our elections. That's just if you haven't been aware of
that since the Cold War, well you've been asleep since

(02:19):
the Cold War. But that kerfuffle really is a nothing burger.
There's nothing there about that because it's all taken out
of context. But before we get to what Gabbard released,
we need to go back to the twenty seventeen Intelligence

(02:44):
Community Assessment, which is kind of the precursor, kind of
the first thing that Obama and Brennan and Clapper and
Susan Rice and everybody else try to get changed and
manipulated as the foundation for the Russian collusion hopes. There's

(03:09):
one key element of that review that is about primarily about,
well solely about then CIA Director John Brennan's reliance on
a very obscure fragment that he used in order to
determine that, according to the Intelligence community assessment, that Putin

(03:33):
aspired to help Trump's chances of victory when possible. It's
a very small fragment, and it comes from a raw
human source, which is human in intelligence speak, human intelligence.
It's a raw human source. And here's what that section

(03:56):
of the ICA says. Putin had made this decision to
leak the DNC emails after he had come to believe
that the Democrat nominee had better odds of winning the
US presidential election and that Trump, whose victory Putin was

(04:18):
counting on, most likely would not be able to pull
off a convincing victory. Now, at first glance, you might
think that means Putin wanted Trump to win. That's just
simply one interpretation, but there are five different interpretations among
the five people who wrote that assessment. A senior CIA

(04:43):
operations officer says this, according to the House, oh, the
House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence, the hp SCI House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We don't know what was
meant by that, and five people read it five ways.

(05:08):
That's in the congressional report. Now, usually that's not a
problem because, as the Intelligence Community Directive Standards makes clear,
alternative interpretations ought to be included in an assessment. But incredibly,
here's what people don't understand. The Intelligence Community assessment that

(05:32):
was done back then failed to do that, even though
there was great disagreement on the fragments, meaning they failed
to put in, hey, we've looked at this human intelligence,
this human and we have five different interpretations of it. Oftentimes,
when I would get a briefing, I would ask what

(05:54):
does this mean? And the answer would be, well, it
depends on who you ask. Some people within the agency
things that it means this, and some people within the
agency things that it means that, and some people within
the agency are not quite sure what it means. So
you can kind of interpret it any way you want to,
because we don't know what it means. That's why the

(06:21):
Intelligence Community Directing number two oh three sets the standard
that makes it clear that you need to include alternative
interpret interpretations about what something means. They did not do that.
The significance of this fragment to the Intelligence Community Assessment

(06:42):
case that Putin aspired for Canada Trump to win cannot
be overstated. The major high confidence judgment of the c
ICA rests on one opinion about a text fragment that
has uncertain meanings, that may be a garble, and for
which it is not clear how it was obtained. This text,

(07:06):
which would not have been published without the DCI, the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency's orders to do so.
In other words, that's exactly what Brennan wanted done. He
wanted this published because even though he knew there were
five different interpretations, he just wanted it published. As fact,

(07:29):
the text, which would not have been published without the
dcia's order to do so, is cited using only one
interpretation of its meaning and without considering alternative interpretation interpretations.
So the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence gives some
examples of alternative interpretations for whose victory Putin was counting on.

(07:56):
Who do you think he was counting on. I think
he was counting on Hillaryes, not on Trump's. Now, since
the information was acquired in July, twenty sixteen. It could
have meant that Putin expected a Trump victory at the
upcoming Republican National Convention, not at the election. The House

(08:22):
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence notes that the convention's outcome
quote was still uncertain because of active efforts to deny Trump.
A majority of convention delegates don't remember all of that.
This was a headline issue for the US political media

(08:43):
at the time, though many pundits nonetheless expected or counted
on a Trump victory. Now you can find it online.
It's a published report. You can just go to Congress
dot gov. You can search for the House permits like
Committee on Intelligence, and you can read the report for yourself.

(09:05):
But I want to include some other findings from the report.
There are enough findings that make it clear that the
Intelligence community assessment reeks to make even it reeks so
badly that it would make bugs run away from it.
Flies would fly away from it. It's that putrid. But unfortunately,

(09:32):
too many polls like Adam Schiff have lower standards than
flies that are attracted to a bunch of crap. Let
me give you I've written down one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
eight different findings. I want you to can think about

(09:53):
each of these three out of the fifteen human intelligence
reports that that the ICA relied on have flawed information.
Yet these three became foundational sources that the assessment cited
to claim Putin aspired to help Trump win. So you've

(10:18):
got fifteen reports, they use three. Now the fifteen, they're
all questionable and they're subject to interpretation. But the CIA
director says put these three in. The second point, the
three reports were published on then CIA Director Brennan's orders,

(10:44):
despite the fact that there were veteran officers of the
CIA whose judgments that these reports contained substandard information, and
that that substandard information was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible, or,
in the words of senior operations officers, just seemed odd,

(11:08):
out of place, didn't fit whatever else we were learning.
The third point is this, the original report does not
directly say that. The Intelligence Community assessment implies that Putin
launched lead operations to help Trump win. Nowhere does it

(11:28):
directly say that. But that was the narrative that they
were trying to establish, even though their only ports say no,
that's not true. The next point, the assessment omits critical
report context, which had it been made available to the reader,

(11:51):
would show that the assessment was implausible, if not ridiculous,
and missing so many geek he details as to be
virtually impossible. Now, remember this is from the House Select
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is their report. You

(12:12):
now understand with what Gabbard's putting out that. Oh, you
now read this?

Speaker 2 (12:18):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
The next point, the assessments selectively excluded information from reliable
intelligence sources that senior Russians Russian officials had serious reservations
about how a potential Trump administration could be bad for
Moscow and complicate repairing relations with Washington. That's pretty insightful.

(12:46):
If if senior Russian officials had serious reservations about how
a Trump administration could be bad for Moscow and would
actually complicate repairing relations with Washington, why would they be
so desperate to try to claim that they were wanting
Trump to win and then last far from showing a

(13:11):
consensus clear preference for Trump. The actual evidence, according to
the report, indicates the Putin and Russian officials saw downsides
to a Trump administration. The intelligence showed that regardless who won,
Moscow still expected their prolonged struggle to repair strained relations

(13:33):
with Washington. Remember Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, hitting
the reset button and not even doing the Russian language correctly,
and everybody making a joint. In fact, the Russians laughing
at her. So where does that leave us? The Intelligence

(13:54):
Community Assessment Report says, quote, we assessed that Russian leaders
never entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton.
But the intelligence that the ICA sites or refers to
makes the conclusion. Report makes that conclusion. Report does not

(14:16):
say that the raw intelligence according to the HPCSI. The
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says this one It
does not state not does it infer that Russian leaders
never abandoned hope for defeating Clinton, but nor does it

(14:37):
even use the word hope or similar phrasing. Second does
not in any way describe the aspirations the plans are
the intention of Putin or other Russian leaders. And third
does not describe Putin's aspirations to help Trump's chances of victory,
nor does it propose even contrasting Clinton unfavorably to Trump.

(15:00):
So the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence Report says that
Putin's decision not to leak additional derogatory information on Secretary Clinton.
As the pose narrowed, undermines the intelligence community assessments claim
that Putin aspired to help Trump win and quote never

(15:22):
entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton. Now,
it seems to me that the conclusion from all of
this is that there was not strong evidence one way
or the other. It seems to me that Putin was
ambivalent that he was going to have problems with others.

(15:43):
We also have the release that Russia had intelligence that
you remember when for example, remember when Hillary was leaving
the Ground zero celebration and they were propping her up
while the suv pulled up to the place where she
was waiting, and she was stiff as a board and

(16:06):
they had to literally kind of like lift her shove her.
She was just stiff, like she was frozen, like she
was a cadaver, like rigor mortis had set in, and
they were trying to get her up and into and
then they start surrounding so that you can't see how
they have to literally like almost break her legs and
shove her into the suv. Huh, the Russians had intelligence

(16:31):
on all these health issues that Hillary Clinton was having
The ausperm Select Committee report says that Putin's decisions not
to leak additional derogatory information on Secretary Clinton as the
pose narrowed, undermines the assessments claim that he aspired to

(16:52):
help Trump win and never entirely abandon hope for a
defeat of Secretary Clinton. Now Clinton is not saying anything,
and I wouldn't expect her to reporters. Can you ask
her to comment on the derogatory information that the SVR

(17:12):
had compiled on Clinton? But she's not going to say
anything about that. Even if it was bad intelligence, nonetheless,
it existed, and the Intelligence Community assessment chose not to
include that information that they had about Hillary Clinton. Why
because if they had information that Hillary Clinton was in
bad shake, wouldn't they won a week president. Of course

(17:36):
they won a week president because I would allow them
to do what they did when we had a week president.
Joe Biden. God, Michael, I didn't know you were that
conchageous over the radio. I'm addictive. I'm Dick Dave.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
Addictive is different thanagious.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
I will say this though, being in here today, I'm
doing this is really helping move the congestion out. Yes, ya,
it's really I mean it may be miserable listening, but
I don't care. It makes me feel better. There's more
of this crap I can get out of me, the
better I feel. So everything that I just described you
in that last segment came out of the House Permanent

(18:25):
Select Committee on Intelligence. That's part of the declassified documents
that Tulci Gabbard released yesterday. Now what's explosive about that
is that it reveals the details about Clinton's physical and
her so called psycho emotional condition during the twenty sixteen election,

(18:48):
and it shows the efforts by top Democrats to keep
that under wraps. So that declassified House Intelligence Committee report
revealed what Russian intelligence had intercepted when they started listening
in on the Democrat National Committee communications, and what did

(19:13):
they find out? Three important things. Clinton was taking heavy
tranquilizers during the twenty sixteen campaign. The old bag was
getting horse tranquilizers. She was experiencing intensified psycho emotional problems,
including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and in cheerfulness like

(19:39):
severe bipolar problems of some sort. And that she was
juggling all these multiple health conditions diabetes, heart disease COPD
and that Intel Committee report that I just described to
you is based on twenty interviews with intelligence officers and
FBI agents as well is the original source material. And

(20:03):
then all of that information was obtained by Russian Hagard
hackers that were targeting Clinton's campaign and the DNC Obama knew.
The Intel stated that Clinton's conditions were extraordinarily alarming to
Obama and to the DNC leaders, but they wanted to
keep it secret, even from her closest aids. Don't never

(20:27):
forget dragon. See if you can find that video from
the nine to eleven Memorial Service. I think it was
in twenty sixteen where Clinton was filmed, I mean unconscious,
as somebody say on the text line. They threw him
there like a sight of beef.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Is this the one where she's trying to get in
the car.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yes, yeah, if you can find that one and put
it up, because that is exactly what was going on.
She's having one of her episodes and all they could
do was try to hide it, and the agents knew.
And if you watch that video, you'll see them swarm
around because they know first they've got one member of

(21:08):
her detail. Now, remember she's she's still at that point.
I yeah, she would be the nominee, I think, so
she would have an enhanced detail. So she's got a
couple of agents around her as they literally have her
propped up against a fence or some sort of wall,

(21:28):
and then as a.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Little one of those moveable barricades little.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
Is that what it was, Jersey barrier or some sort.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, they literally I'll post it to Michael, says, go
here dot com. But yeah, they literally pick her up
and place her into the car.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
And she's like she has rigor mortis, Like she's she's
just stick as a board. They hid that, that's in
the reports, and the Russians hacked it, and the Russians
got it now. According to the report, the Russians also
got campaign emails showing Clinton's team was soliciting donations from

(22:04):
religious organizations by promising favorable treatment from her administration if
she got elected. And Clinton herself was in on the
approval of the Russia hoax, because the report says that
Clinton personally approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia
in order to distract from the scandal surrounding her private

(22:25):
email server. So why didn't putin use it. According to
the report, as I was trying to describe you in
those details, Russia didn't leak the findings during the twenty
sixteen because it truly believed that a Clinton victory was inevitable,
and then they wanted to use that after she won

(22:46):
in order to weaken her, undermine the United States, make
her as weak as Biden, and they could go on
and they could have done something. Well, you know, they
could have invaded Ukraine during the Clinton administration, but they
knew they couldn't do it during the Trump A ministration.
That's why these reports are so freaking damning. Was that me, okay,

(23:15):
try it again? Is it still there? Uh? Let me
move this over around here? Is it still there? What's it?
What's it run in? Still there? Still there? Gone? Okay,

(23:39):
all right, good? I had to move wires all around.
Maybe maybe I should go back and do my redo,
my self assessment and say, well, I would play audio,
except we got too many wires crossed in the studio.

Speaker 3 (23:53):
As you know, Jesse, Uh, the integrity of our democratic republic,
of our elections is of paramount import to the American people.
Knowing what had occurred previously, the things that this Russia
hoax thing that was called a conspiracy. I wanted to
get to the bottom of the truth of what actually
happened here. This was obviously important to President Trump, but

(24:16):
again is an issue of importance to every single American
in this country in the future of our country.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
As a republic.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
So shortly after.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
Coming into this position as Director of National Intelligence, I
formed a special team to investigate this issue. I got
to tell you, it wasn't easy. There were a lot
of deep state obstacles that exist still within the intelligence community.
But ultimately we had a whistleblower who came forward that
brought some critical pieces to this story, and we were

(24:46):
able to discover these documents and find these documents that
really pointed to President Obama directing his national security leaders
in James Clapper and John Brennan to manufacture this January
twenty seventeen Intelligence Community assessment.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
Now, someone on the text line ask I don't know
whether you understand how insightful your question was or not,
but gooben riber zero zero four two rights Mike, Why
weren't these documents destroyed by Obama or his staff? Oh?

(25:24):
He Obama could have destroyed all the documents he wanted to,
but just in case, just in case there was anything anywhere,
or they remembered. Nobody trusts anybody inside the Beltway. Everybody's
always looking over their shoulder.

Speaker 2 (25:45):
You don't want to destroy something that could possibly use
to guess one of your opponents one day, even though
they're on the same side, even.

Speaker 1 (25:51):
Though you're on the same side, who knows if they
start coming after you and you were in cahoots with Obama.
You want to preserve the documents that point right back
to I was just doing what Potis told me to.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Do, and I like, when you've got dirt on your best friend,
you're not going to destroy that dirt, because what if.

Speaker 1 (26:11):
Your best friend someday turns on you. It's human nature. Now,
you take the best friend example, and you put it
in the high pressure, the pressure cooker of inside the Beltway,
and you've got Potus doing stuff that, even though you
may approve it, you know it's wrong, even though you

(26:35):
may want to do it. You know what you're doing
is wrong. So Obama may destroy his documents or he
may tell you to destroy yours, but you never do,
and then the people below you know what you're doing.
So somebody somewhere's always going to keep something. It goes

(26:56):
back to Hughey Long's statement, there's always That's why Washington,
DC is such a cesspool. That's why these documents were
never destroyed. Oh, they can classify the crap out of them.
They can classify them and burialm and burial and bury
them because they think that someone like Tulca Gabbard will

(27:17):
never get them. But Tulci Gabbart, who has nothing to
lose except her life, Toulcy Gabbart is determined that, you
know what, I was put in here for a purpose,
and I've laid my life on the line before, I'll
do it again, and I'll dig and dig and dig.
And then I had the advantage of a whistleblower come
forward and say, yeah, there's finally somebody here who's going

(27:39):
to put the truth out. Because those bureaucrafts within those agencies,
they don't they don't want their credibility destroyed, so of
course they're not going to destroy those documents.

Speaker 3 (27:52):
The investigation that I led at ODE and I that
we released last week Fridays provided a lot of those foundations,
building blocks and proof for what we know happened. The
report that we released today the House Intelligence Committee Oversite
Majority Staff report that investigated that January twenty seventeen assessment

(28:13):
that President Obama had manufactured with fake intelligence in order
to achieve knowingly using false intelligence in order to get
to the conclusion that he wanted to promote to the
American people that Putin had acted in favor of President
Trump winning that election in twenty sixteen. The report we
released today, line by line, goes through it dissecting and

(28:36):
debunking the knowing falsehoods and lies that were included in
that assessment with the specific intent to undermine the legitimacy
of President Trump, to subvert the will of the American
people who had just voted to a log Donald Trump
in twenty sixteen, and to in essence launch this year's
long coup against President Trump that lasted throughout the four

(28:58):
years of his administration. Back in twenty sixteen, this was
a win win.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
For the Rooskies. Clinton wins, we can use it against her.
Trump wins. Oh, they'll use it against Trump. We win
that way too. So the Russians knew precisely what they
were doing, as did Barack Obama. So coming up next,
all of these documents. These revelations not only demonstrate John

(29:27):
Brennan's criminality, but they disclosed that Hillary Clinton's health issues
and a reminder that Christopher Steele he is kind of
ultimately the world's biggest comeback those documents.

Speaker 4 (29:41):
Next, for the one and fiftieth celebration, we should chain
polists to the steps of the Capitol and charge everybody
a dollar to throw brownies at him.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
That would be wonderful. Or since Caldera likes to pick
up fecesh although that might be that might be crossing
a line throwing a brownie, throwing something edible, Yeah, that
might be all right.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
Yeah, but I think there's probably more feces in Denver
than there are brownies.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
Yeah yeah, but maybe bring your own brownies, bring your
own feces, bring your own feces, or make your feces
look like brownies, and you.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Know, sometimes it's full of nuts and corn.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
By the way, the baby boomer is not having problems
with technology. The problem that the baby boomer has is
that a certain corporation won't provide the type of technology
that I need to do the program the way that
I want to do it. So I have to jerry
rig things so that it will do what I wanted

(30:56):
to do. Yeah, that's the problem. So you can hey
boomer all you want to, but that's that's not the
problem here. The problem is looks over her shoulder. Yeah,
nobody's out their corporate So Gabard's not wasting any time.
By way, I just hit him dragon, I don't hit
probably has had time to put it up yet. But
this report is available online, so if you don't believe me,

(31:20):
you can go look at the report yourself. What she's
really doing is she's shoving these discoveries in the collective
face of the Democrats and the media. Now, while the
national news organizations, as complicit as any party in perpetuating
the Russia hoax, are going to try to either ignore

(31:42):
the release or they're going to try to unsuccessfully spend
this material. Who said Russia hauked the election, say all
the reporters who said the same thing for almost a decade.
Gabbard laid her case out pretty succinctly to the national media.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Direction, and with the support and coordination with the House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford. Today we've released a declassified
Oversight Majority Staff report that was produced in September of
twenty twenty. The stunning revelations that we are releasing today
should be of concern to every American. This is not

(32:25):
about Democrats Republicans. This has to do with the integrity
of our Democratic Republic and American voters having faith that
the votes cast will count. There is irrefutable evidence that
detail how President Obama and his national security team directed
the creation of an intelligence.

Speaker 2 (32:44):
Community assessment that they knew was false.

Speaker 3 (32:48):
They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia
interfered in the twenty sixteen election.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
But is it a crime