Pam Adkisson

GRAND CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP Nunes: It goes back almost a decade. In early 2016, that is key, early 2016, Clinton and the DNC start to frame Trump and decide that they're going to tie him to Russia. The FBI is involved early in that, so are people within the Obama White House. The dates that really become important are the dates that John Ratcliffe was talking about there. Back in 2016, in July, the intelligence agencies discover that this plan [Hillary plan to tie Trump to Russia] is afoot. Then we know that Brennan tells Obama and Biden and others about this, and he informs the FBI. That's in around August 1st of 2016. Then we have plenty of evidence where the fake news is heavily involved, and they keep going up story after story leading up to the election. But in 2016, nobody cared, nobody bought it, it seemed ridiculous, but there were probably some two dozen outlets that were on this Russia conspiracy stuff, but it just fell flat. And then the unthinkable happens, and that is that President Trump wins in 2016. Now, it becomes relevant for us, or for me, and the Congress at the time, because we then are briefed by the intelligence agencies right around Thanksgiving of 2016 that nothing unusual had happened. The bad guys were doing bad guy things like they always do, but as you know, there's a reason that every country, or most every country, power great powers, they have cyber capabilities, they have spy agencies, intelligence networks. So bad guys are always going to do bad things, and guess what? I would hope as, you know, us working with our allies, we're also going to go after the bad guys too. So that all happens, it's we get briefed, nothing abnormal, Grant, zero. Okay? Then go forward just a couple weeks, less than a couple weeks. And this was put out by Tulsi Gabbard that we did not know. And that is that the Presidential Daily Brief, PDB is the acronym, had in there exactly, now that I've seen it, was exactly, almost verbatim, what we had received a couple weeks before. And that was that Russia didn't do anything, Russia didn't change the outcome. Yes, they were doing bad things, but they always do bad things, but nothing happened to change the outcome of the election. Then there's a meeting that occurs in the White House on December 9th, and that is when Obama directs the change in this new, never done before, ICA, Intelligence Community Assessment. That gets done in record time for government, by the way, in record time. Here you have election just occurred, it's December 10th by the time they get working on it. Government agencies hardly work around Christmas and New Year's, and voila, on January 6th, not of 2020, January 6th of 2017, Obama's still president, Trump gets briefed, we get briefed, and that's when they have the dossier in there, and they've changed within a month, including, less than a month, including with New Year's and Christmas, all kinds of new intelligence miraculously occurred. The problem, granted, it didn't occur. And what also was released in the last couple weeks, which is what kind of buttons all this together, is our investigators on our committee, along with myself, Kash Patel, others, John Ratcliffe, Trey Gowdy, all names that you're familiar with, we took over two years, and we went through every single piece of intelligence, we put it into a report, and that's what you're referring to. When you refer to that the Clinton plan was out there, that Putin knew about it, we also knew Putin didn't care about it, Putin didn't think Trump was going to win. If anything, the intelligence that we looked at in its entirety would show, if anything, that Putin wanted Clinton to win, which, by the way, I believe he did. Now, I can't say that definitively, because we don't have, you know, you would need two or three different sources of intelligence that Putin, actually saying he wanted Clinton to win. But when you look at the entirety of it, there wasn't one ounce of evidence that said Putin, when I say evidence, meaning intelligence, because we went through all the intelligence. We put that all into a 40-page report. We asked, we released it, we asked publicly, we said we're ready to release it. We asked President Trump in 2018 to declassify it. He did. The Deep State hid it from us. For two years, we fought and fought and fought. Finally, Trump loses, he again said it was declassified. Voila, it wasn't declassified. For whatever reason, never shows up at the archives. Okay? Now, why am I saying archives? It becomes important here. Because by the end of 2020, now President Trump is out of office, and then this report never gets out. I'm still in Congress, and we're saying, where the hell is this report? It should have been declassified. It was declassified. And, of course there's a mountain of evidence in there that just now got out in the last couple of weeks because it was finally declassified by President Trump and Tulsi Gabbard. Now I'm going through all of this because you asked, you know, you talked about conspiracy. So that document, I believe, is the one or one of the ones that caused the raid at Mar-a-Lago in 2022. They were looking for that document because that document is deadly to John Brennan, Clapper, all of them because that was obstruction of our Committee, of Durham, of everybody involved that looked at this over the last eight years. So what happened in Florida, the raiding of Mar-a-Lago, that was started by the Archives making a criminal referral that documents hadn't been returned. And I believe putting all that together is because we thought that that information had been put to the archives. We called Archives and say, where the h*ll is it? They desperately didn't want that information to come out. They do a criminal referral and then they raid Mar-a-Lago, Jack Smith and company. So you've got a couple of different investigations going on here. Pam Bondi says she's going to convene a Grand Jury. You have an investigation of Jack Smith. That in a nutshell are all the important dates, and there's a lot of stuff in between. Interviewer: The raid on Mar-a-Lago, literally to collect evidence that would be damning against President Trump's political foes, is the height of the greatest political scandal of all time. And I'll ask you this. You're investigating the Russian collusion hoax while you're in Congress. President Trump's first term is going on. You don't ever see John Brennan's notes that Ratcliffe talks about that he just found and some of these other documents. Are these all new to you as well or were they classified and you couldn't talk about them? Nunes: We didn't find out about those until January or December of 2020, late 2020, is when those notes were found. But we knew that, everybody knew, except for Trump and Republicans, that this was a grand conspiracy in 2016. Everybody else knew. The FBI, the CIA, Obama, the DNC, every fake news media out there in America. They were all in on it. OK. So those notes are basically Brennan's get out of jail free card because I think he knew that this was scumbaggery or whatever you want to do. That's why he immediately took it there and said, hey, everybody know this is a this is a Clinton hoax and DNC hoax. Everybody know he conveniently writes that down, puts it into a safe. Now, the problem for Brennan is about those that he was never held to the account by Durham is that that was kind of critical for us to know in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 when when we should have known. I mean, he was brought before multiple times. Do you have anything else to tell us? Do you know anything about this? "No, no, no, no, no." Or "I don't know." Comey, 250 times that "I don't know" or "I don't remember". So I think that, when you look at this, it's not just about, the obvious people, we made a dozen criminal referrals, but the obvious people are the ones running the intelligence agencies at that time that went along with this. But there's many, many others that include people that were in the Biden DOJ. So you know how who appointed Jack Smith, why? It's one thing to go after Jack Smith on the Hatch Act. But what you'll find when you peel this back is the same people. It's the same people that were way back in 2016. All the way through back into Biden, back behind Jack Smith. Same people, are all the same. I would seriously look at probably two dozen people, is what my investigation would go, would would look at. And I would convene the Grand Jury. And based on you have to collect all the evidence that Durham, that our committee, that others, you put all that together, you're going to have a Grand Conspiracy case that I think is, then it just depends on, you know, do they obstruct justice? Do they lie? Those are the types of things I think that would matter ultimately to a jury. If this is ultimately prosecutions are brought. There's a stockpile of evidence. The question now becomes and I say this as I'm not an attorney, I used to work with a lot of attorneys, still work with a lot of attorneys and ran a lot of investigations in my day. But what this is really going to come down to is once you start to then go and ask people questions, follow up on what Durham has done, ultimately does anybody come clean? If you look at what Durham did, is he found some lower level people. He brought those prosecutions in D.C. I think they were good prosecutions. Clearly a jury in D.C. found that they weren't. So, jurisdiction is clearly a problem. Building off of what Durham did,, building off this new information. This is ultimately what a prosecutor will have to come up with. But in terms of there's a bulk of evidence that just depends on what road do you want to go down? And then I think critically important is what do you discover about the raid at Mar-a-Lago? In my mind, I would start there if it was me. And that is going to be a big key.