Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard blew the whistle on what could well be the "Crime of the Century" - the collusion between outgoing President Barack Obama and his top intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper and others to manufacture a false story about Donald Trump's "collusion" with the Russians to win the 2016 election. The goal was nothing less than a coup against the American people and their choice for president in 2016. Also today - are we really going to audit the fed?
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Very good.
All right.
How is the situation out there in our country, in our financial markets, in our pocketbook?
How are we doing?
Well, we're going to talk a little bit about that.
And, you know, we have to pay attention to what's going on internationally, too, because we're spending a lot of money over there.
I think we ought to audit all that.
Every penny that leaves the country has to be audited and itemized and permitted by a vote of Congress before they send it.
Big deal, because even the people in Washington don't have the vaguest idea of how much really goes and where it's being spent.
But I think the markets are still signaling big trouble ahead, especially this morning.
You know, although I have anticipated for many years that the monetary system is not well run and it's going to lead to chaos and it's going to be a big deal.
It could be the destruction of the dollar.
And you can, you know, talk about a lot of things.
I haven't tried to scare people, but I tried to warn people and tell them, well, it's all have to do with ideas and the monetary policy that we have.
But this morning, even though it shouldn't surprise me, but I was still a little bit shocked, it gets my attention.
You know, silver is essentially at $40 an ounce, and that used to be $1.29.
So there's something going on there.
Somebody's printing a lot of money.
And also gold, $3,400.
Same thing.
When the Bretton Woods broke down and we went bankrupt, we did not honor our commitment to the dollar with gold at $35 an ounce.
It's at $3,400.
So I think that even though we can't expect more, we shouldn't be totally surprised.
It still is disturbing.
Why don't they wake up?
When are they going to wake up?
Are they going to wake up and say maybe it's related to the size and scope of government?
And of course, that's my theme is that government is too big.
They spend too much money.
It's too much in secrecy.
I wrote a little pamphlet a few months ago, and I talked about a coup.
I believe there's been a coup, but I dated the coup from November 22nd, 1963, because I thought that was a big event, and I remember it so clearly because at that time I was in the Air Force.
But it is the point I was making was all the assassinations in the 60s with Kennedy, Kennedy, and then Martin Luther King, and all these things that are going on.
But there are people now talking about, you know, a matter of fact, a modern day, maybe somebody recently might have been doing the same thing, trying to take over the government.
But I'm thinking more long term because in a way, I think in terms of the Republic, is there a real good, healthy republic in this country right now?
I would say no.
People don't even talk about that.
Besson On Fed Independence00:11:13
They want democracy, democracy.
And now we have to make sure we have enough votes to beat the socialists and on and on.
So this is a time when I think that people should be waking up.
I think they are.
But I think one of our jobs, Daniel, is to try to present the ideas that would have prevented and supported the principles that the founders gave to us because historically, it turns out that the events of our revolution and our Constitution, very, very valuable.
But I don't know if people were going to estimate, well, what percent of that constitution do you think we really adhere to in a strict manner?
And I would have imagined there's some people who wouldn't be very optimistic on our conditions today.
Well, you know, Dr. Paul, you've been lately been interested in talking about the markets as we open the show, and I think a lot of people like to hear that.
Well, there's something related to sort of what you like to talk about in the intro, which I thought we would bring up before we get to our main topic, and that is the issue of the Fed.
Now, all of a sudden, the Fed is in the news.
And put up that first clip, if you can.
Let's just get that up for a second.
And so, Scott Besson, the Scott Besson was on, Treasury Secretary Scott Besson was on an interview where he started questioning some things about the Fed.
He said, What do all those PhDs do?
And here's actually a clip.
Let's play that first audio clip.
This is a little longer than we usually play, but it's worth listening to what Besson is talking about the need for a format to Fed.
You might want to put that earpiece in, Dr. Paul, and hear what Secretary Besson has to say.
Would you just offer up what your opinion would be on firing J-Powell if the president were to do that?
Do you think that would be a good idea, or would you dissuade him from that?
Look, Joe, I think that what we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful.
I'm speaking, actually, I'm going to be in the building this evening.
There is a regulatory conference that begins tomorrow.
I'm the keynote speaker tonight talking about regulation.
The Fed, as well, deals with monetary policy, regulations, financial stability.
And again, I think that we should think: has the organization succeeded in its mission?
You know, if this were the FAA and we were having this many mistakes, we would go back and look at why has this happened?
It's an interesting comment.
Why haven't they succeeded in their mission?
You know, in a way, though, he was describing, you know, we need to check this out to find out if they're unsuccessful and why not.
I keep thinking the evidence is out there.
It's been out there, and there's been good people, even when the Fed was established in 1913, there were people that understood exactly what we were starting out with.
They knew it before Bretton Woods broke down.
And they knew it, you know, on all these regulations.
Now they're going to have an investigation.
I'm all for that because I want an audit.
I want a lot of things.
And the investigation should be there.
So, in some ways, I want to say, well, this is optimistic, at least he's saying some of the words.
But sometimes they twist words around in enthusiasm.
But maybe we can be a little more hopeful with this administration.
But I have a few things that bother me about how things are being handled because they're talking about independence, and the Fed always wants independence.
And now there's a big fight between Trump and Powell.
And they still, they're not arguing that we shouldn't have any independence.
But I don't think either one of them wants true independence and the thing that everything is open.
What they want, I substitute a word that helps me to understand all this.
And it is independence is equivalent to them demanding total secrecy.
And that then that rules.
And I think there's an argument about what the rates should be.
I don't think they're arguing who should be in charge.
Fortunately, I think the Trump administration will always believe in independence as long as all they're asking, who's going to be the independent leader to tell us what we're supposed to do.
Well, this probably won't shock you, Dr. Paul, but your sentiments are reflected in a senator from Kentucky put on that next clip because he had basically the same reaction to Besson's points.
He reposted it on X and he said, audit the Fed.
And then he also said, thank you, Secretary Scott Besson.
So he's appreciating the fact that Besson says we need to take a look at the Fed and see if it's working right.
And he's encouraging an audit.
Now, go to that next clip.
Now, this is a write-up on Zero Hedge about this whole sort of incident.
And you talked about this just before the show, Dr. Paul, how shocked you were.
He said, Besant went on to muse over, quote, all those PhDs over there.
I don't know what they do.
This is like universal basic income for academic economists.
And you mentioned that you were surprised when you found out how many people they have on the payroll.
Yeah, and you think, how many people, you know, some or 300 of them, well, why would you need that many?
Because none of them are saying the right things.
They're all saying the wrong things.
They're arguing about how to manage it.
And they come along and say, well, we need somebody with more vision.
And the one statement, rather than reflexive regulating anything that hits the headlines, we need to instead explicitly do it in advance.
And my thoughts are, all they're talking about is more financial regulations right away.
We have to be smarter about anticipating, which they don't know.
They don't know where people are going to spend their money, and they don't know what's going to happen.
The market is the best decider of that.
But anyway, I want to give credit to when they're hitting that they would like us to do it.
In their words, I think even Trump has not said, oh, no, we're never going to audit the Fed.
So when he's given some support for that.
So I think that, yeah, we had to do that.
But I think people need to be warned that sometimes political promises are not usually fulfilled.
Yeah, reform is a four-letter word in many cases, right?
Remember what John McManus of the John Birch Society once said, you can't reform cancer.
Sometimes you just got to get rid of it.
Go back to that one again because I want to just read this out, Dr. Paul.
This is a teaser from the Zero Hedge article.
This is not a quote from Besant, unfortunately, but it is rather a savory little morsel.
So Zero Hedge writes, Besson's criticism of the Fed's ability to fulfill its basic mission of providing stability to financial markets, regulating the banking system and conducting monetary policy might suggest that Trump could bypass questions of whether he has the legal authority to fire Powell and, quote, do an Andrew Jackson by abolishing the central bank altogether.
Now, that would be a rather interesting move if he did an Andrew Jackson.
He does have a picture of Jackson up in the Oval Office.
Yeah, but you know, it seems like they're talking about the legality of firing somebody and how do you get rid of people.
It seems like they could figure that out on what they can do.
I mean, they can fire generals and everybody else.
Why is it the greater sin of ever getting rid of somebody that the market or the big guys at the market want to keep in place?
They don't ever expect people to come along and say, okay, we're going to keep him up forever.
Why don't they talk about filing a suit to say, you know, this whole thing is totally illegal.
There's no authority for a central bank.
They fought it out for years from the beginning of our Constitution.
They fought it for the first two banks.
They got rid of them.
But 1913 was an unlucky year because bad things happened then.
Well, here's a couple more to sort of finish out this topic because Senator Paul from his official Senate account on X posted this.
You like this picture, Dr. Paul?
It's kind of neat.
It shows Senator Paul and former Congressman Ron Paul.
And Senator Paul said, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, formerly famously known as Audit the Fed, isn't just legislation.
It's part of a movement my father Ron Paul started to bring sunlight to the most secretive institution in Washington.
Grateful to Scott Besson for carrying the torch and pushing for real accountability.
Time to audit the Fed.
The fight to Audit the Fed lives on.
Apologies for my misreading of that.
Nice little statement.
And then he finishes, though, with an important point, a clarification in this next post, if we can put that up.
Now, he posted this just this morning.
Treasury Secretary Besson is finally calling for a full review of the Fed.
It's about time.
And I highlight this part, Dr. Paul, but let's be clear.
A review won't fix a corrupt, unaccountable institution.
It's time to end the Fed.
So he got a little bit more steely, a little bit more firm in his reaction.
He was, I think, probably like you, happy that it's up for discussion, but he does want to make the point, but look, the problem is the institution.
It's not who runs it.
Yeah, he wasn't mincing words either.
That was pretty tough.
So I thought it was a great statement.
Yeah, very interesting.
Whenever the Fed gets talked about, it's good because people don't realize the terrible things they do.
But don't you think there's more attention to the Fed now than it was when you were in college?
Well, remember when we were visiting with Tucker Carlson, and he said in your first campaign, he thought it was kind of kooky.
This guy keeps bringing up the Federal Reserve.
And then he actually looked into it and realized that it really is.
I remember the first interview I had in 1974.
And all I wanted to, I announced, so I was a candidate.
So I was on a talk show host.
And the subject came up, but everybody was, what are you guys talking about?
But we had a caller in.
He was a union guy, probably working at Dow Chemical Plant.
And he was the one that called in to support me.
And Compers, you know, was a per-gold guy.
U.S. Intelligence and 2016 Elections00:15:29
Oh, yeah.
And it's true if you've had a full understanding of monetary policy, the working people should be.
And I'm sure there's a lot of working people for it.
Oh, yeah.
But for sound money.
And they should.
But it's too often that it always comes up, well, the prices are too high because there's gouging and different things.
And then they end up wanting to do something more.
Well, if the prices are too high, what we need is more money.
I think that's going in the wrong direction.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, kind of the main thing we wanted to cover today is not easy to cover.
And we both have sort of been wrestling with this for the past few days because on the one hand, it's a blockbuster release.
We're actually seeing the documents.
We're actually seeing declassified documents demonstrating that a coup took place or an attempted coup took place after the 2016 elections.
Not the fake January 6th insurrection, but an actual coup took place.
Now, we always, we spent years on this show talking about how phony RussiGate was.
But the fact that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, came out and literally declassified those and said, look, this is what happened.
But the problem is sometimes you can miss the forest for the trees.
I'm going to make an attempt, probably not a good idea on my part, but to summarize it in a sentence or two, which is that for the period leading up to the 2016 elections, the entirety of the U.S. intelligence community, from the CIA to the FBI to the NSA, DIA, and all down, they all assessed that Russia was not substantially interfering in the elections, either through electronic means or any other means.
They simply weren't involved in it.
That was the run-up to the 16 elections, whereas we remember Hillary Clinton had a 99.9% chance winning, according to the New York Times and all the mainstream media.
Well, something happened that shocked the establishment, which is that Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
And so what happened is that the entirety of intelligence community assessment that they weren't was turned on its ear after the election produced a candidate that the deep state, whoever you want to call it, Obama, didn't like, and they turned it upside down.
And then they said it was interference.
Now, this is what Tulsi released, Dr. Paul, and I just clipped as little as I possibly could to try to get the flavor of what she presented on Friday.
If you go to that first one, this is her official letterhead.
Key evidence, new evidence of Obama administration conspiracy to subvert President Trump's 2016 victory and presidency.
Now go to that next one.
Here's her opening of the press release on Friday.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed overwhelming evidence that demonstrates how after President Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, President Obama and his National Security Cabinet members, and I highlight this, manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.
I'm going to go to the next one.
Here's the setup.
And this is a longer version of what I just said, Dr. Paul.
In the months leading up to the 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia is, quote, probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means.
Now we get to the December 7th, 2016 after 2016, after the election, sorry, after the election, the talking points were prepared for Director of National Intelligence Clapper stating, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. President's election outcome.
And then on December 9th, okay, so that was a sixth.
Sorry, this is getting into the woods more than I wanted to.
But on the 9th, Obama brought together his National Security Council top team members, Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe from the FBI, and others, to discuss Russia.
Now, this is important, Dr. Paul, and I'm sorry again.
After the meeting, DNI Clapper's executive assistant sent an email to the intelligence community leaders, tasking them with creating a new intelligence community assessment, quote, per the president's request, i.e., Obama, that details, quote, the tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 elections.
It went on to say the offices of national intelligence will treat this effort with participation from FBI, CIA, NSA, and DHS.
And then she also points out that Obama officials after that leaked false statements to the media claiming that Russia has attempted to interfere in the election.
And that remember this, Dr. Paul, that January 6th, 2017, intelligence community assessment was released that directly contradicted the intelligence community assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.
So it's a long way of saying when they found out that Trump won, they said, oh no.
All the time we're saying the Russians weren't interfering.
Let's just switch it on his ear and say they were interfering.
You know, this is all very, very important, and it'll wake up a few people.
But when I put it in the big picture, you know, I see things a little bit differently because this assumes, and this is an assumption, a wild assumption, that there was a world court and it was respectable, and they always would come up with the right answer.
So what if this job of honest elections was turned over to this court?
Do you think the United States would get off scot-free?
I mean, how many times are we involved in this stuff?
You know, even in our own elections now, you know, we used the coup in, you know, Ukraine most recently, and we're always involved in Syria, all these places.
And that, I think, is something that it's the interference.
It's interference that we shouldn't be doing.
But I think the more the people know about this, so this is key information, to realize that they would do it.
And they were doing it at home.
This is especially beneficial because at least we're trying to clean up our own house.
At least there's some people there that would like to.
And I think it's very good.
But when you take the principle of manipulating elections, oh, I guess you could write a book about how many there have been, our involvement.
That's why I find the answer to so many of these problems of what the CIA is doing and all the corruption.
We always ask, who decided we had to have a central bank?
Well, who decided we had to have a CIA?
And well, we've always had security and yet the CIA and all expanded tremendously as our empire expanded after World War II.
You make a great point there that's so important because you're talking about all the times the U.S. manipulated elections overseas, hundreds of times.
And if I can go back to my past, as an election observer, I watched several of these color revolutions take place on the ground when I was physically there.
And the group that I was with at the time, we kept saying to ourselves, you know, today the U.S. can be doing this overseas.
Someday it's going to come to our shores.
And that's exactly what happened with Obama.
All of the overthrows, all of the Arab Springs, all the color revolutions that they were doing overseas, Obama must have sat down and said, why don't we just do that here?
This will be easy.
This is a no-brainer.
And so he said, okay, all the intel that said the Russians weren't involved, from now on, they were involved.
And where did the info that they got, what was the info that they got to change their minds?
The steel dossier, which we knew was completely fake.
That's what they claim that they used.
So it is important that we did it overseas and that these guys thought that they could do it here now as well.
You know, to have a coup work, you have to have the people stationed in the right places.
In our country, we've had a far left operation going on for 100 years infiltrating our educational system, our medical system, the whole works.
And they're in charge.
And money is very important.
But under these cases, sometimes money does the trick.
But they eventually, in our case, it's the coup that has lasted longer.
How do they get all these people in a right place?
I understand they're still there out there.
How could they wipe them out when more than half of them, well, the major part, just like, why don't we go and weed out the bad economists at the Fed?
Do you think that would solve the problem?
I think that'd be worthless other than emphasize, well, they're all people who are against free enterprise, free markets, societal conversations against the Constitution.
But now the infiltration in this country, that's why I worry more about that because, you know, how do you make sure you only have good teachers in a government school?
Well, there are good teachers, and you have to try to do that.
But ultimately, we shouldn't have government schools, you know, especially the federal government schools.
There was never any authority for that.
Yeah, the thing about the Russia gate, we remember those four years of 16 to 20.
Now, Trump did plenty of boneheaded things on his own.
But nevertheless, this cloud hanging over the presidency, that he was somehow put into office by Putin, as absurd as it was to some of us, a great portion of that country literally believed it.
And so the implications of this falsification of the deep state of what they did, this is a deep state coup.
This is a deep state saying we cannot let Trump have this presidency.
We have to do something to block it.
And that's exactly what it was.
Well, what are the implications for the United States?
And this is why it's important.
Well, we moved very close to nuclear war with Russia.
Because think about it.
The idea that Vladimir Putin was somehow able to put his agent in the seat in the Oval Office, that is an act of war by Russia against the United States.
I don't think anyone would disagree if that really happened.
So that moved us very close to war, and it was based on a lie.
So they were willing, these people, Obama and Brennan and Comey and Clapper, they were willing to take us to the very brink of nuclear war based on a lie because they didn't want to give up power.
You know, fortunately, you know, the final end turns out to be relatively beneficial to us.
But again, it points out that some of the attacks by the opposition to Trump backfired on them.
You know, going back to the impeachments and different things like that.
They did so many things.
But this one was supposed to be secreted.
Obviously, nobody would ever catch us on doing this.
How could this guy ever win the presidency?
And I guess we have to give a couple pluses to the people who were waking up at the time and decided that this is not going well.
I'll tell you who I wouldn't want to be right now is John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director.
Because as DNI, he was in Tulsi's position those first years, that first term in President Trump.
Why didn't he look for these documents and find them?
Maybe he's part of the deep state as well.
You know, that makes you wonder about that.
But there were so many victims, including, remember, General Mike Flynn in the early days of the presidency, they wanted to disorient.
They wanted to sow chaos.
I mean, Clapper and Obama and his gang.
They wanted to sow chaos.
And so they got rid of Flynn on fake charges because there was no Russia collusion.
And actually, Flynn, if we put that next one up, Flynn did comment on this.
And if anyone deserves a comment, he deserves a comment about this.
And he does a pretty good job.
I probably messed you up.
It's Flynn's post.
There we go.
Thank you.
So Flynn said, with regards to the release by Tulsi Gabbard, this is surreal.
Here in America, the director of national intelligence is now stating emphatically that a former president of the United States, Barack Obama, attempted a coup against Donald Trump.
That is why Gabbard was attacked so relentlessly over the past few weeks and months.
They knew if there were anyone with the guts to investigate the attempted coup, it would be her.
Well done and more to come, checkmate.
Very, very important.
And I think it would be safe to say that the Ukraine war would not have happened if they had not done this coup, if Obama and Brennan and the rest, because they poisoned the well with regard to Russia.
We could not have good relations with Russia.
They pushed Russia away.
They pushed Russia into a corner, all based on these lies that Russia somehow interfered in the election.
Now, someone who is not unbiased, we should accept that, and that's Donald Trump Jr., he put out a post.
You might want to grab your earpiece if you can.
He pointed out, and this is a long one, but it's worth watching because one of the things that Tulsi said, or Tulsi Gabbard said, is that they planted fake stories in the press.
Now, let's remember what the media did to Donald Trump when he was president over Russia.
If we can play that Trump Jr. one, it's long, but I think it makes such an important point.
It's also a media scandal.
For literally years and years, the media spewed nonsense about collusion, lies about the steel dossier, and endless testimony hearings.
And witch hunts?
Well, here's a quick trip down memory lane.
Check this one out.
I'm sure you'll remember these fonts.
Understand just how much trouble the president is in.
To believe that the president isn't compromised requires such a leap of faith.
I think we have all the proof we need of a scandal that's arguably worse than Watergate.
The U.S. president possibly working for the Russians, possibly an unwitting pawn.
Here's what the president said when asked if he was a secret Russian agent.
The president did not directly answer the question.
Why not just say no if that's the answer?
There is tons of proof of potential collusion.
We have dramatic evidence of collusion.
How is it not collusion?
How is all of that not collusion?
A political hurricane is out there at Sebraham.
We'll call it Hurricane Vladimir, if you will.
Donald Trump knows the noose is tightening.
The noose is tightening.
The noose is tightening, if you will.
The noose is tightening around the president.
The noose is tightening.
And I think they're shocked that the noose is tightening and that people might go to jail.
Hurricane Vladimir Tightens00:02:21
He knows he and POTUS are going to prison.
Well, I think they're all going to end up together in prison.
And maybe that's a good question.
Oh, my God.
The walls appear to be closing in on the president.
The investigative walls are closing in.
He feels the walls closing in.
The walls are closing in.
Trump resigns, quote, once Mueller closes in on him and the family.
It's also a media scandal.
The media all say the exact same thing.
That was a good clip, nonsense about collusion.
Yeah, reading the language.
So they are part of the deep state, that's for sure.
You know, every once in a while, they want to protect themselves.
They use the word possibly this could be later on in the program.
They were just flat out saying, you know, they knew.
But it's just possible, Daniel, that everything we heard in there was all based on a motivation to lie and support the illegal taking over the government.
Yeah, the coup.
Support Brennan and the coup master.
No, Obama is very, very unlikely that he will be indicted simply because he has protected status because of what he was doing while in office.
But that doesn't hold for people like Brennan and Clapper and all of the others who are colluding with him to subvert an election.
And yeah, you can say this is taking the attention off Epstein.
That may well be the case.
That may be the intent.
So be it.
But still, this is a huge thing.
This is something that if it's not punished, it will continue to go on.
And the other thing is the poisoned relations with Russia that we had during Trump's years, because if Trump ever said anything nice about Russia, of course it would be because he's an agent.
We can't let him say anything nice.
So that means he had to be extra mean.
He had to do things like send javelins to Ukraine to show that he wasn't Putin's puppet.
All of these horrible things.
Now there's a million Ukrainians dead because of this, and however many thousand Russian soldiers dead, the country's destroyed, all because they put Trump in a box as Putin's agent, and he couldn't do anything constructive.
Now, I did pull up a post, Dr. Paul, from Kirill Dmitriev.
He is the president of the Russian State Investment Fund, and he makes a very good point.
He said, I had 13 pages in the Mullah report.
Ukraine War Sabotage00:01:21
No wrongdoing found.
I worked to build U.S.-Russia dialogue.
I'll consider testifying in Obama-era trials over the Russia hoax.
It wasn't just an attack on Trump and Russia.
It sabotaged diplomacy, the GOP, and set the stage for the Ukraine war.
And I think that's a very accurate point.
You know, I started the program talking about events in general terms and affecting the marketplace.
And I think we've sort of followed up on this, that this is enough to make people a little bit concerned, you know, whether they're on the take, whether they endorse welfare or whatever.
Even the people who are cheating, you know, might say, well, maybe this is unstable, and there's every other reasons, just economic reasons, bad economic and monetary policy, and bad foreign policy that would cause people to realize that the economic stability is going to be affected.
So when they read this domestic stuff going on, but in some way, some of us think that this is some positive business, something positive is going to come out of it.
Let's hope so.
Let's hope so.
But I do want to express my depreciation for all the people who have tuned in to the Liberty Report.