核查《纽约时报》"每日"播客中充斥虚假信息的"通俄门"特辑，与迈克尔·谢伦伯格和阿伦·马特对谈

欢迎收听梅根·凯利秀，工作日中午东部时间在SiriusXM 111频道直播。大家好，我是梅根·凯利。欢迎来到梅根·凯利秀。周三早晨我醒来查看播客订阅时，看到了《纽约时报》的《每日播客》——这是我常听的节目。

Welcome to the Megan Kelly show live on SiriusXM channel one eleven every weekday at noon East. Hey, everyone. I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. When I woke up Wednesday morning and checked my podcast feed, I saw the New York Times' The Daily podcast, which I often listen to.

他们终于开始报道我们节目连续数周追踪的'通俄门'真相。主持人迈克尔·巴巴罗请来了《纽约时报》调查记者迈克尔·施密特。我本以为会很有趣，因为我们已得知詹姆斯·科米正是通过他的哥伦比亚法学院教授朋友向施密特泄密。记得施密特还因通俄门报道获得过普利策奖。

And they had finally gotten around to covering all of the Russiagate revelations that we've been doing on this show for weeks. Host Michael Barbaro brought on the New York Times investigative reporter, Michael Schmidt. I thought this is gonna be really interesting because he is the reporter that we've learned James Comey used for leaks through his Columbia Law professor friend. Comey used his Columbia Law professor friend to leak to Michael Schmidt. And I remembered that Schmidt won a Pulitzer Prize for his Russiagate reporting.

我原以为他们会先承认几个事实，再听听他的说法。但令人震惊的是，《时报》在节目中对此只字未提——完全不提他本人牵涉其中。媒体像哈巴狗般不加核实就刊登漏洞百出（坦白说根本是虚假）的情报来抹黑特朗普，这堪称史上最大媒体丑闻之一。按理说若我是《时报》或《每日》负责人，考虑到施密特正每日遭受播客和网站对其新丑闻的抨击，他应该是最后一位会被推为'专家'的人选。

So I thought, okay, they've got a few things to acknowledge up front, and then let's hear what he has to say about all this stuff. Of course, shockingly, the Times did not acknowledge any of that in its episode. None of it. That he is personally involved in the controversy, that he is part of it because the media acting like lapdogs, taking what we now know was flimsy at best and, let's face it, false intelligence, and slapping it on the pages of their magazines and newspapers without checking in an effort to smear Donald Trump is one of the biggest media scandals of all time. And I I would think if you're running The Times and The Daily, Schmidt is probably realistically the last person you would want a platform as the expert on this, given the fact that he's personally coming under fire daily on the podcasts and the websites that are actually bothering to cover this new scandal.

但他们却堂而皇之让他以'可信专家'身份亮相周三节目，再次就丑闻误导听众。这是他在MSNBC的另一段采访——显然他觉得播客效果太好，需要上电视宣传。

But, no, they platformed him like he was truly a trustworthy the trustworthy one might say expert on Wednesday. And once again, misled their audience about everything on this scandal. Here he is on a different broadcast. This is over on MSNBC. And he decided the podcast was just so good.

他选择上了妻子妮可·华莱士（MSNBC主播）的节目，而华莱士又犯下新闻操守大忌——全程未向观众披露她与嘉宾的夫妻关系。

He needed to go on MSNBC to promote it. And he chose to do that on the show of his wife, Nicole Wallace, who's an MSNBC anchor, who committed yet another sin of journalism by not acknowledging her relationship, I. E. Her marriage with her guest, to her guest, at any point.

无论是加巴德、中情局长拉特克利夫还是卡什·费特尔，他们抛出这些所谓'揭开通俄阴谋'的重磅指控时，显然指望支持者不会去细读他们发布的材料。但若真去研读，就会发现名不副实。比如图尔西·加巴德指控奥巴马及其情报官员犯叛国罪，却拿不出任何能实质性推进阴谋论证据的东西。

Gabbard or CIA director Ratcliffe or, Cash Fertel, they go out and they make these massive claims that they say truly unlock the Russia conspiracy. And, you know, they're they're hoping, apparently, at least it it looks like that that that their supporters aren't gonna go and read the actual materials that they're putting out. But when you read them and study them and look at them, they're not what they they claim to be. But at the same time, they're making massive claims. You know, Tulsi Gabbard making claims of treasonous criminality by Obama and his intelligence community officials, but not doing that, based on anything that really moves the ball in terms of proving that conspiracy.

可惜施密特和华莱士女士，我们和嘉宾们仔细研读了所有文件。今天我们将深度核查他在《每日播客》（全美最火新闻播客）中的全部谬误——《纽约时报》此举绝对涉嫌渎职。现在有请公共新闻Substack创始人迈克尔·谢伦伯格，以及为Real Clear Investigations报道特朗普俄罗斯事件的独立记者亚伦·马特。最近我常提Riverbend Ranch，因为我太爱他们的牛排了。

Okay. Well, unfortunately for Mike Schmidt and Nicole Wallace, we did read all the documents and so have our guests, and we're going to take a deep dive today to fact check everything he got wrong on The Daily, which is the most watched podcast news podcast in the country. I mean, this is absolute negligence by The New York Times. Joining me now, Michael Schellenberger, founder of the public news Substack, and Aaron Mate, an independent journalist who covers the Trump Russia story for Real Clear Investigations. I've been talking a lot about Riverbed Ranch lately because I love their steaks.

Riverbend Ranch的牛排堪称一绝，他们将黑安格斯牛肉提升到全新高度。最近听到MAHA运动领袖RFKJ说他只吃红肉和发酵食品吗？Riverbend Ranch能满足你所有需求。

Those Riverbend Ranch steaks are something else. Riverbend Ranch has taken Black Angus beef to a whole new level. Did you recently hear RFKJ, head of the MAHA movement, saying really all he eats is red meat and fermented products? Hello. Riverbend Ranch has got you covered.

35年来，Riverbend Ranch通过超声波筛选基因优越的牛只，打造出风味与嫩度俱佳的顶级安格斯牛群。购买他们的产品不仅支持牧场64位牛仔/女及其家庭，还惠及260多家美国牧场和数百个劳工家庭。从出生、饲养到加工全程美国本土完成，经21天熟成后从牧场直送您家。这绝非普通黑安格斯牛肉——立即登录RiverbendRanch.com订购。

For the last thirty five years, Riverbend Ranch has been creating a very elite Angus herd by using ultrasound to select genetically superior cattle with a focus on flavor and tenderness. When you buy from Riverbend Ranch, you're not only supporting the 64 cowboys and cowgirls and their families who work on the ranch, but you're also supporting over 260 other US ranches and the hundreds of American families who work on them. It is born in The USA, raised in The USA, and processed in The USA. It is aged to perfection for twenty one days and shipped directly from the ranch to your home. This is not your average Black Angus beef, so order from Riverbend Ranch dot com.

使用优惠码Meaghan首单立减20美元，记得告诉我品尝体验。RiverbendRanch.com，优惠码Meaghan。朋友们，欢迎回来。

Use the promo code Meaghan for $20 off your first order, and let me know what you think. Riverbendranch.com, promo code Meaghan. Guys, welcome back.

很高兴来到这里

Good to be

。感谢邀请我们，梅根。

here. Thanks for having us, Megan.

那么让我们从头开始。迈克·施密特在8月13日这周三再次登上《每日秀》，试图描述这场争议，却完全忽略了一些极其重要的事实。我先给大家播放这段内容，然后我们可以一起讨论。

So let's start right at the beginning. Mike Schmidt goes on The Daily, again, this is on August 13, this Wednesday, and tries to characterize the the controversy, while completely ignoring certain really important facts. Let me just play this out for you, and then we can react.

对特朗普政府而言，这关乎最初针对特朗普与俄罗斯关系的政府调查，可追溯至2016年竞选期间。我认为我们需要回顾那项调查——我知道你当时密切跟进过。请简要提醒我们调查的基本结论，以及为何特朗普政府至今仍对此耿耿于怀。

For the Trump administration, this is all about the original government investigation into Trump and Russia dating back to the twenty sixteen campaign. I think we need to go back to that investigation, which I know you covered very closely. Just remind us of the very basics of that investigation and its conclusions and why the Trump administration remains so fixated on it.

特朗普赢得2016年大选后，人们普遍认为俄罗斯干预了竞选活动。面对这个事实，奥巴马命令情报机构进行评估，本质上是为了弄清俄罗斯的行为及其动机。情报机构得出了一系列结论，并在奥巴马政府最后几天、特朗普即将就职前发布了一份文件。他们发现普京试图损害希拉里·克林顿、帮助唐纳德·特朗普，同时破坏美国民主。

In the aftermath of Trump winning the twenty sixteen election, it was widely understood that Russia had meddled in the campaign. Obama, faced with that reality, ordered his intelligence community to conduct an assessment, essentially a determination to understand what Russia had done and why it had done it. The intelligence community comes to a series of conclusions, which they lay out in a document that was released in the final days of the Obama administration, just before Trump was about to take over. And they find that Putin tried to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump while undermining America's democracy.

-好的，各位。我先说说我的观察，然后再听听你们的看法。面对俄罗斯干预竞选这个被广泛认知的事实，对吧？这已经直接预设了事实和证据的存在。

-Okay, guys. Here here's my own observation on this, then I'll get you guys to weigh in. Faced with the reality faced with the reality that was widely understood that Russia had meddled in the campaign. Right? Like, already just assumes facts, evidence.

对吧？就像所有人都知道俄罗斯人进行了干预。面对这个棘手现实，奥巴马除了下令调查、要求评估以了解俄罗斯的行为外别无选择——但这根本不是事实真相。然后他们声称得出一系列结论并写入文件。不。

Right? Like, everyone knew that the Russians had interfered. And faced with this very difficult reality, Obama really had no choice but to order an investigation, to order an assessment, a determination to understand what Russia had done, which is not at all what actually went down. And then to talk about it as they reached a series of conclusions and they lay them out in a document. No.

这完全没有涉及结论背后的缺陷，也没有提到奥巴马为引导整个调查走向特定结论而进行的刻意操纵——特别是我们现在知道的情报机构原本要向他汇报的俄罗斯情报前后变化，以及他本人的介入导致最终报告内容被彻底修改。这些在迈克尔·施密特对即将播放内容的总结中只字未提。

It doesn't cover any of the infirmities underlying those conclusions nor the intentional manipulation, Aaron, that Obama did to try to make sure this whole process reached a certain conclusion with, in particular, the before and after of what the intel community we now know was about to tell him on Russia, then his involvement, then the complete change in what was actually reported. None of that in Michael Schmidt's summary of what we're about to hear.

没错。他只是在遵循'通俄门'剧本——企业媒体如何通过复述单一叙事来报道这个故事，同时无视所有相反证据。就像这次一样，大量新出现的反证被他直接无视。如果你读过最近解密的众议院情报委员会报告（该报告审查了2017年1月詹姆斯·克拉珀和约翰·布伦南发布的情报评估），就会发现迈克尔·施密特关于俄罗斯干预和倾向特朗普的每个说法都是错误的。错误原因在于布伦南和克拉珀只挑选了极少量情报，而忽略所有破坏他们叙事的其他情报。

Correct. He's just following the Russiagate playbook when it comes to, how the corporate media covered this story of parroting a narrative while ignoring all the countervailing facts. And as is the case here, there are plenty of new countervailing facts that he is just simply pretending don't exist. If you read the recently declassified House Intelligence Report that reviewed the January 2017 intelligence assessment that was put out by James Clapper and John Brennan, they pointed out that every single thing that Michael Schmidt said about Russian interference and the preference for Trump was wrong. And it was wrong because Brennan and Clapper simply cherry picked a very small amount of intelligence and ignored all the other intelligence that undermined their narrative.

例如关于'俄罗斯干预以帮助特朗普'的指控，众议院报告指出其依据仅是含义模糊的只言片语。有人说普京指望特朗普获胜，而该信息来自克里姆林宫一位二手消息人士。因此，支撑情报界'普京希望特朗普获胜并助选'结论的，本就是个可多向解读的片段信息，且来自道听途说。与此同时，情报委员会评估却忽略了他们收到的所有其他情报，包括普京明确表示不在乎谁当选，因为他预计无论谁胜选华盛顿政策都不会改变。这就是迈克尔·施密特和《纽约时报》同事们无视破坏其阴谋论证据的典型案例。

So for example, on the claim that Russia interfered to help Trump, the House Intelligence Report points out that that was based on a fragment of one sentence, which had an unclear meaning. Somebody said that Putin was counting on Trump winning, and that came from a Kremlin official who had secondhand hand access. So, basically, that conclusion that underpinned the intelligence community assessment that Putin wanted Trump to win and was trying to help him win was based on a fragment of a sentence that could have been interpreted multiple different ways and that came from someone who was relaying hearsay. And the intelligence committee assessment, meanwhile, ignored all the other intelligence that they had received, including that Putin had said very clearly he didn't care who won because no matter who won the election, he expected the same policy from Washington. So that's an example of Michael Schmidt and all of his colleagues at The New York Times simply just ignoring the evidence that undermines their conspiracy theory.

完全没有指出时间顺序的问题，12月8日，他们当时被安排接收一份总统每日简报，我们现在知道，那份简报如果有什么作用的话，就是淡化了俄罗斯的参与。然后还有那次与所有高级情报官员的关键会议，根据奥巴马幕僚长的说法，会议向克拉珀下达了指示。我们还看到了书面记录。第二天，他们说，按照总统的指示，我们要走另一条路。他们完全改变了方向，就在第二天，新闻媒体，包括迈克尔·施密特的报纸，就开始传播新的说法，即俄罗斯试图帮助特朗普。

The complete absence of pointing out the chronology, December 8, they were set, we now know, to receive a presidential daily brief that, if anything, downplayed Russia's involvement. And then there was this critical meeting with all the top intel officials that, per Obama's chief of staff, released direction to clapper. And we saw it in writing. The next day, they said, Per the president's direction, we're going this other route. They went an entirely different way, and the very next day, the news media then ran, including Michael Schmidt's newspaper, with the new narrative, which was Russia tried to help Trump.

我们现在开始清楚地看到，所谓的‘通俄门’骗局本质上是一场由情报机构、中央情报局、联邦调查局协同制造的虚假信息行动，最引人注目的是国家安全局提出的一些担忧，这很有趣，还有《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》参与其中，制造了一种印象，即唐纳德·特朗普犯有叛国罪，是一个傀儡，因为他被俄罗斯通过性勒索行动控制。这个极其荒谬的阴谋论被《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》以及中央情报局和联邦调查局推广了多年。所以你在迈克尔·施密特的播客中看到的，只是这场虚假信息行动的延续，其首要目标，我们现在知道，要么是弹劾特朗普，要么是对他进行刑事起诉，最终目的是要么让他下台，要么削弱他的执政能力和连任机会。

We are now starting to get a really clear picture in which what the Russiagate hoax was was basically a disinformation effort created in concert by the intelligence community, the CIA, the FBI, most dramatically with some concerns raised by the NSA, which are interesting, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post to create the perception that Donald Trump had committed treason and was a puppet because he was controlled by Russia in a sex blackmail operation. That incredibly outlandish conspiracy theory was promoted by The New York Times and The Washington Post along with the CIA and FBI over years. And so what you're seeing in the the Michael Schmidt podcast is just a continuation of that disinformation effort aimed at, first of all, that we now know achieving either impeachment, or or criminal prosecution of Trump and ultimately with the goal of not of either removing him from power or disabling his ability to govern and be reelected.

如果我能快速提一下迈克尔·施密特。他从一开始就是这场虚假信息行动的关键人物。他撰写，或者说合著了《纽约时报》2017年2月14日的一篇报道。我简直不敢相信这篇报道还在，但它充分说明了‘通俄门’时期新闻业的彻底腐败。2017年2月14日，《纽约时报》的标题是‘特朗普竞选团队与俄罗斯情报人员多次接触’。

If I can make a quick point about Michael Schmidt. He has been a key actor in this in this disinformation campaign from the start. He authored, he coauthored a report in the New York Times, 02/14/2017. I can't believe the story is still up, but it speaks to just the complete corruption of journalism during the Russiagate era. 02/14/2017, the headline in the New York Times was Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.

报道的第一句话是，根据四位现任和前任美国官员的说法，截获的电话记录显示，2016年特朗普竞选团队的一名成员及其他特朗普 associates 在选举前一年与俄罗斯高级情报官员多次联系。所以迈克尔·施密特和《纽约时报》很早就声称，特朗普竞选团队在整个选举期间都在与俄罗斯高级情报官员交谈。明白吗？这是一个非常严重的指控。

And what it says is, the the first line, that phone records intercepted phone calls to the member of Donald Trump 2016 campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election according to four current and and former American officials. So Michael Schmidt and the New York Times were alleging very early on that the Trump campaign was talking to senior Russian intelligence officials, throughout the election. Okay? It's an extraordinary allegation.

确实是。

Sure is.

没有任何证据支持这一点。他们提到了电话记录，截获的通话。这些通话在哪里？什么都没有。就连吉姆·科米后来也作证说这不是真的。

Zero evidence to support it. They talk about phone records, intercepted calls. Where are these calls? There there's nothing. Even Jim, Jim Comey had later testified that it wasn't true.

彼得·斯特佐克，特朗普-俄罗斯调查的联邦调查局首席探员，根据他的解密笔记，没有任何证据支持这一点。但迈克尔·施密特和《纽约时报》从未更正这一点，因为他们参与了这场虚假信息行动。这篇报道至今还在，像他这样的人还能假装权威地谈论‘通俄门’事件，这恰恰说明迄今为止，这场巨大的骗局完全没有受到任何追究。

Peter Strzok, the lead FBI agent on the Trump Russia probe, according to his declassified notes, there was no evidence to support this. But Michael Schmidt and the New York Times have never corrected this, because they were part of this disinformation operation. And the fact that that story is still up and the fact that people like him can still speak or pretend to speak with authority on on the Russiagate story, it it just underscores how there's been zero accountability so far so far for just this massive scam.

在某种程度上，这让我对《纽约时报》的读者和MSNBC的观众产生了一些同情。我是说，到了这个地步，他们知道自己得到的是什么，所以同情不多。但我想说的是，《纽约时报》和它的读者之间存在一定程度的信任。而他们似乎是被《纽约时报》及其记者故意误导的。对于他们犯下的错误，完全没有问责，而‘错误’这个词已经算是客气了。

It it to some extent, it makes me feel some empathy for readers of The New York Times and watchers of MSNBC. Mean, this point, they know what they're getting, so not too much empathy. But I'm just saying that there is a level of trust between The Times and its readers. And they're truly being, it appears, willfully misled by the Times and its reporters. And there's just no accountability for the mistakes that they've made, and that mistake is a charitable word too.

完全没有。他们希望他们的观众对此感到困惑，而他们的观众也确实对此感到困惑。好吧，让我们梳理一下，因为还有很多内容需要讨论。

None whatsoever. Want their audience to be deluded about this, and their audience is deluded about this. Okay. Let's let's go through it because there's a lot to

就像一个污染者。他们自己给自己颁了一个污染者的称号。在这种情况下你能怎么办？只能把这件事压下去。

a polluter. Like, they gave themselves a polluter for this. So what are you gonna do in that situation? You just gotta keep that one down.

嗯。是的。你不能还回去。你不想还回去。好吧。

Mhmm. Yeah. You can't you can't give it back. You don't wanna give it back. Alright.

这是我们想要核实的下一个声明。第二条。

Here is the next claim that we wanted to fact check. Number two.

她发布了一份由塔尔萨撰写的机密报告，这份报告是特朗普第一届任期内众议院共和党人所写，声称普京并未试图帮助特朗普或损害希拉里·克林顿。

She releases a classified report that was written by Tulsa. House Republicans in Trump's first term that claims that Putin was not trying to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

所以这份报告对奥巴马政府情报结论的核心发现——即普京希望特朗普获胜——提出了实质性质疑。

So a report that takes real issue with this pretty central finding of the Obama intelligence conclusion that Putin wants Trump to win.

没错。但必须注意的是，这份报告是由众议院一群顽固的特朗普支持者撰写，且孤立无援。包括参议院大规模两党调查在内的其他严肃机构在审查此问题时，都没有得出这些众议院共和党人的结论。

Correct. But it's really important to note that this report was written by a bunch of hardened Trump partisans in the house, and it stands alone. No other serious entity that has looked at this question, including a massive bipartisan investigation in the senate, comes to the claim that these House Republicans did.

好的。迈克尔，这份众议院情报报告是由党派黑客所写，我们刚刚拿到手，所以可以不予理会。但参议院情报报告堪称完美，无可挑剔，100%支持我们的发现。所以我们要大力宣扬那份报告。我们看到这些'通俄门'骗局的鼓吹者不断引用参议院情报报告为自己辩护。

Okay. So Michael, it's partisan Hacks who did the House Intelligence Report, which we just now got our hands on, so it can be dismissed. But Senate intel report, stellar, untouchable, and 100% supports our findings. So let's tout that one. We've seen the Senate intel report touted over and over again by these Russiagate hoaxers trying to defend themselves.

对此有何看法？

Thoughts on that?

是的。我是说，人们应该花时间读读那份众议院报告，即HPSE报告（以众议院情报监督委员会首字母缩写命名）。这份报告极具破坏性，它全面梳理了奥巴马时期中情局局长为制作那份情报界评估报告而精心挑选的全部情报。

Yeah. Mean, look, think people should take the time to read that House report, the HPSE report. It's called HPSE after the acronym, the House Committee on Intelligence, the Oversight Committee. It's devastating. I mean, it goes through the full body of intelligence that was cherry picked essentially by Obama's CIA director to create that intelligence community assessment.

施密特完全是在故意误导。我不知道还能怎么说。很难相信他在读完众议院报告或拉特克利夫刚公布的中情局技术备忘录后，还会真心坚持这种观点。

Schmidt's just being deliberately deceptive. I don't know how else to say it. It's hard for me to believe that he honestly thinks that after reading either the House report or the CIA tradecraft memo that Ratcliffe just released.

亚伦，参议院情报委员会承认其调查能力有限，不包括搜查令或窃听等 FBI 拥有的权限。他们表示虽然委员会不认为最终结果呈现了全貌，但相信这份报告提供了迄今为止最全面的情况说明。他们并非全盘否定自身结论，而是承认存在局限。而自报告发布以来，你和其他人都指出这份被施密特等人奉为黄金标准的参议院情报委员会报告还存在其他缺陷。

The Senate Intel Committee, Aaron, acknowledged that it was limited in what it could do. It acknowledged that its power to investigate did not include search warrants or wiretaps and that it fell short of the FBI's abilities. They said that while the committee does not describe the final result as a complete picture, we believe this volume provides the most comprehensive description to date of what happened. So they they were saying they weren't saying everything we're saying here is bullshit, but they were saying, we acknowledge we've been limited in what we are able to do. And since this was issued, you and others have pointed out there were other deficiencies with the senate intel committee report that is now being touted as the gold standard by people like Schmidt.

如果参议院情报报告是黄金标准，为何它排除了众议院情报报告（HPSI报告）所揭露的所有证据？为何我们直到现在才知晓这些证据？例如，关于普京偏爱特朗普的关键判断，竟是基于一个可被五种方式解读的句子片段。为何参议院情报报告未调查或告知我们这些内容？相反，该报告实质上只是盖了个橡皮图章。

If the senate intel report is the gold standard, why does it exclude all the evidence that the HPSI report, the house intelligence report uncovered? Why are we just learning about all that evidence? Like, for example, the fact that the key judgment of Putin preferring Trump was based on a fragment of a sentence that could be interpreted in five different ways. Why didn't the Senate Intelligence report look into tell us any of this stuff? Instead, the Senate Intelligence report essentially was a rubber stamp.

若询问华盛顿任何了解参议院情报报告制作过程的人，都会知道是民主党参议员马克·华纳在主导此事。他从一开始就狂热推动特朗普与俄罗斯勾结的议题，这份报告能否证实该论点对他至关重要。而共和党共同主席理查德·伯尔因腐败指控被边缘化，最后由马可·鲁比奥作为共和党代表签署报告——他应该回答：为何要与马克·华纳合作？

If you speak to anybody in Washington who's familiar with how the Senate Intel report was produced, it was senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, who was running the show, and he was gung ho on the issue of Trump Russia collusion from the start. He had a lot riding on a report validating it. And another thing happened where senator Richard Burr, who was the Republican cochair of the Senate Intel Committee, he got sidelined because of some, corruption allegations. Senator Marco Rubio, who was then they had to put his name on it, as the Republican chair, he should answer. Why did he go on with Mark Warner?

因为最新解密的Hipsey报告显示，参议院情报委员会忽视了关键情报。我们从Hipsey报告中得知了许多惊人事实——这些本应由参议院情报报告披露（如果它可信的话）。只需对比两份报告：当一份报告包含参议院报告未提及的大量证据时，哪份更可信不言自明。

Because now we're learning from the Hipsey report that's just declassified that the Senate Intel Committee ignored key intelligence. We learned so many incredible things from Hipsey. We should have learned that from Senate Intel if it was credible. So if you just compare the two reports, if one report has all this evidence that the other report, the Senate intel report, doesn't address, it's pretty clear to me which one is more credible.

没错。但迈克尔·施密特对此全盘否定，称这些都是强硬党派分子，是众议院里一群特朗普派系的死忠。所以他否定众议院报告，却认可参议院报告。

Yes. And that so but Michael Schmidt dismisses all of that by saying, oh, these are hard partisans. These are a bunch of Trump affiliated hard partisans in the house. So he dismisses the House report, but not the Senate report.

听着，即便真是如此——即便Hipsey报告全是特朗普支持者所为（何况参议院情报委员会也有特朗普派系），他们仍遗漏了Hipsey报告的众多内容，这本身就是明显事实。其次，即便他们全是特朗普支持者且别有用心，关键在于他们揭露的事实是否真实——而目前无人质疑这些事实的真实性。

Well, look, even if that's true, even if these were all Trump partisans, on the Hipsey report, first of all, you also had Trump partisans in Senate intel, but yet they missed so much of what Hipsey, produced. So that's a glaring, fact right there. And second of all, look. Even if they were all Trump partisans and that was their aim, the fact is either the facts that they uncovered are true or they're not. And no one's disputing the facts that they uncovered.

无人否认约翰·布伦南和詹姆斯·克拉珀亲自挑选五人团队（在布伦南指导下）撰写2017年1月报告；无人否认'普京偏爱并意图助特朗普获胜'的关键结论，仅基于某位与普京仅有间接接触的克里姆林宫消息源的只言片语；更无人否认布伦南和克拉珀排除了所有收到的情报——包括直接接触普京的消息源称'普京不在意大选结果，因预期结局相同'的情报。

No one's disputing that John Brennan and James Clapper handpicked five people under Brennan's direction to write the January 2017 report. No one's disputing that the key finding of Putin preferring Trump and aspiring to help him win was based on a fragment of a sentence based on a Kremlin source who only had second access to Putin. No one's disputing that John Brennan and James Clapper excluded all the intelligence they received, including from sources who had direct access to Putin, from Putin saying that no matter who won the election, he didn't care because he expected the same result.

我们来看下一条指控，SOT三号。

Let's do the next claim, SOT three.

该报告实质上提出了与奥巴马政府结论不同的观点。基本上是说...

The report offers essentially a different opinion from what the Obama administration came to. Essentially says

众议院情报报告。

The house intelligence report.

称普京意图做某事，而我们认为普京并无此意。但报告中没有任何内容——比如奥巴马给情报界的邮件写着'我不管证据如何，我们必须搞垮特朗普'——能证明或暗示存在更大的叛国阴谋。

Said Putin wanted to do one thing. We believe Putin didn't wanna do that. But there's nothing in that report like an email from Obama to his intelligence community saying, I don't care what the evidence shows. We need to get Donald Trump That proves or shows or raises even questions about a larger treasonous conspiracy.

迈克尔·谢伦伯格，对此有何看法？

Michael Schellenberger, thoughts on that one?

我是说，我们对于奥巴马在其中扮演的角色并不比之前了解得更多，但我们确实知道在12月9日，他召集了所有情报和安全机构负责人开会，基本上要求他们进行那份将在2017年1月发布的情报界评估。我们还知道，就在同一天，《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》据称与多个消息来源交谈后报道称，俄罗斯人确实帮助并希望帮助特朗普赢得选举。所以，对于一个以严厉打击泄密者著称的政府来说，奥巴马政府在12月初参与了制造这种虚假信息。你能追溯到奥巴马吗？我的意思是，当然，这就像是他们创造了一个钢铁人。

I mean, you know, we we don't know too much more about Obama's role than we did before, but we do know that on December 9, held that meeting to basically require all with all of his intelligence and security agency heads to to do that intelligence community assessment that would come out in January 2017. And we also know that exact same day that The New York Times and Washington Post had conversations with multiple sources according to them who reported that, in fact, the Russians had helped and wanted to help Trump and help Trump win the election. So for an administration that was famously cracking down supposedly on leakers, the Obama administration was part of creating this disinformation in early December. Can you trace it to Obama? I mean, of course, it's like he's it's like they created he's creating a a steel man.

就像，他有点像是在说，没有确凿的证据。嗯，几乎从来就没有确凿的证据。我是说，这甚至都不相关，因为你知道，最高法院已经在特朗普的案子上裁定不能起诉在任总统。所以我认为这一切都是在转移注意力，掩盖基本事实，即情报界和主流新闻媒体中的党派行为者联手制造了一种虚假的认知。你可以争论，我们也可以问，这可能并不那么重要，但他们在多大程度上知道自己在做什么。

Like, he's sort of saying, there's no smoking gun. Well, there almost never is a smoking gun. I mean, it's not even relevant because, you know, you we the supreme court already decided with Trump that you can't prosecute a sitting president. So I think that it's all a distraction from the basic picture here, which is that partisan actors in the intelligence community, in the mainstream news media worked together to create a false perception. And you can argue, and we can it's interesting to ask, it may not be that important, but to what extent they knew what they were doing.

我是说，我认为从法律角度来看，这确实重要。但这就是在很长一段时间内发生的事情。当然，参与撰写情报界评估的情报分析师们知道有些事情不对劲。他们确实反对将斯蒂尔档案纳入情报界评估。而FBI和中情局局长布伦南都要求将其纳入。

I mean, I think from obviously a legal perspective, it does matter. But that is what was happening over a long period of time. And certainly the intelligence analysts who were involved in creating the intelligence community assessment, they knew that something was wrong. And they did oppose putting the Steele dossier in the ICA. And both the FBI and the director of the CIA, Brennan, were demanding it.

知道

Know

所以这没关系，

So that's okay,

认为奥巴马的关系有点转移注意力。

that's think you have Obama's relationship's a little bit of a red herring.

所以这就是我对这种说法的问题，艾琳。不仅仅是众议院情报委员会与奥巴马团队的意见不同。而是众议院深入研究了奥巴马情报团队提供的结论，发现它们完全没有依据。不仅仅是‘我们对同样的证据有不同的看法’，而是‘你们没有你们声称拥有的证据’。

So this is my problem with that statement, Erin. It is not just that the House Intel Committee had a different opinion than what Obama's team had. It's that the House took a deep dive into the conclusions that were offered by Obama's intel team and found that they were utterly unsupported. It wasn't just, We see the very same evidence differently. It was, you don't have the evidence you claim that you have.

你们的关键判断，比如普京干预以帮助特朗普，完全没有依据。你们在这份文件——1月17日的情报界评估中误导了我们，关于你们对此的相信程度以及你们得出这些结论所依据的证据。

Your key judgments, like that Putin interfered to help Trump, are totally unsupported. You misled us in this document, the January 17 ICA, about how strongly you believed this and about the evidence that you were basing these conclusions on.

是的。他们还指出，布伦南自己的分析师们也不同意。而布伦南只是挑选了他同意的结论。我的同事保罗·斯佩里在《真实清晰调查》多年前就报道过，布伦南在普京意图问题上亲自否决了两位高级专家的意见，而希普西报告也证实了这一点。所以不仅仅是希普西报告查看了所有底层情报，还表明没有任何东西支持布伦南的结论。

Yes. And what they also point out is that Brennan's own analysts also disagreed. And Brennan simply cherry picked the conclusions that he agreed with. My colleague at Real Clear Investigations, Paul Sperry, years ago reported that Brennan personally overruled two senior experts when it comes to Putin's intentions, and the Hipsey report confirms that. So it's not only that the Hipsey report looked at all the underlying intelligence and just showed that there was nothing there to support Brennan's conclusions.

这些证据进一步表明布伦南推翻了自己人的结论。这更加证明所谓情报界共识的说法纯属谎言——尤其考虑到我们此前已获悉（正如我上次做客节目时讨论的），2016年9月FBI和NSA就'通俄门'核心指控（即俄罗斯黑客入侵并泄露民主党邮件）持反对意见。如今通过图尔西·加巴德的解密文件，我们在近九年后得知FBI和NSA当时反对约翰·布伦南的结论，表示对该指控'可信度存疑'。最近几天还有更多细节曝光，我们稍后会讨论。但...

They also show more evidence that Brennan overruled his own people. So it's just more evidence that this idea of an intelligence consensus is just such a lie, especially since we also learned, as I discussed last time I was on with you, that in September 2016, the FBI and the NSA were dissenting on the core Russiagate allegation that Russia hacked and leaked Democratic party emails. And now we know, nearly nine years later, thanks to Tulsi Gabbard's declassification, that the FBI and the NSA dissented from John Brennan, and said we have low confidence in that allegation. And more about that has come out just in recent days, which I think we'll get to. But it it

可以理解。能现在谈谈吗？虽然本周节目没涉及，但最新爆料显示克拉珀当时对他们施加了巨大压力要求速战速决。他实际上在说：'如果必须跳过正常流程在奥巴马离任前搞定这事（赶在特朗普上台前），那我们就得这么做'。

is understandable. Can you speak to it now? Because we we we didn't cover it actually on the show this week, but it just came out that clapper was putting massive pressure on them to just get this done. He was like, if we're gonna have to, you know, skip the normal protocols to get this done before Obama leaves office is what he was really saying and Trump comes in, then that's what we're gonna have to do.

图尔西·加巴德最新披露的文件非同寻常，我建议大家阅读——不同于多数'通俄门'材料，它只有两封邮件。内容显示2016年12月22日，情报官员正匆忙赶制2017年1月那份关于所谓俄罗斯干预的报告。NSA局长迈克·罗杰斯给科米、克拉珀和布伦南发了邮件，他说了什么？

It's an extraordinary, release that just came out from Tulsi Gabbard, and I encourage people to read it because unlike most Russiagate material, it's not very long. It's only two emails. But what it is is 12/22/2016, as the intelligence, officials putting out that January 2017 report on alleged Russian interference are rushing to finalize the report. And Mike Rogers, the head of the NSA, sends an email to Comey, Clapper, and Brennan. And what does he say?

他表示：'各位，我必须转达下属的担忧——在指控俄罗斯黑客入侵并泄露民主党邮件这个核心问题上，我们既没看到足够的基础情报，也没获得充分时间做出可靠结论。我们希望结论经得起推敲。'他接着说：'如果你们只用CIA和FBI名义发布报告，我没意见。但若要署NSA之名，我们需要更多情报查阅权限和时间，因为现有情报基础令人难以信服。'

He says, hey, guys. I have to relay some concerns I've gotten from my people, which is that when it comes to the the core issue of blaming Russia for hacking and leaking Democratic party emails, we're not being shown a sufficient amount of underlying intelligence, and we're not being given a sufficient amount of time to reach a proper conclusion. And we wanna be confident in our conclusion. And then he goes on to say that, listen. If you're just gonna put this out in the name of the CIA and the FBI, then that's fine.

这个声明极其重磅——要知道12月9日《华盛顿邮报》和《纽约时报》刚报道称情报界一致认定普京通过黑客干预大选助特朗普获胜。而几周后的12月22日，NSA局长迈克·罗杰斯却说：'我们尚未看到能支撑该结论的情报，请给予更多时间和权限。'对此詹姆斯·克拉珀的回复实质是：'我们会尽力，但可能不得不

I'll withdraw my, my objections. But if you want our name on it, we need more access, and we need more time, because, you know, we're just not confident in the underlying intelligence. It's an extraordinary statement because at that very because by that point, this is December 22. On December 9, you had stories in the Washington Post in New York Times saying that the intelligence community has all agreed that Putin interfered in the election via hacking and leaking to help Trump. And this is now a few weeks later, Mike Rogers of the NSA saying, we have not been shown the intelligence that could help us reach that conclusion.

在常规流程上做出妥协'。他还强调'保持口径一致至关重要'，甚至引用'这就是我们的说法，我们坚持到底'这种说辞——这等于变相承认...

So can you please give us more time and more access? And what James Clapper says is basically, yes, we'll do our best, but, we may have to, quote, compromise on our normal, quote, unquote, modalities. And he also says, but it's really important that we're all on the same page. And he even says, in the highest tradition of, quote, that's our story, and we're sticking to it. So he's tacitly acknowledging there

太疯狂了。

So crazy.

他们本质上在要求所有人统一诈骗口径。但抱歉迈克·罗杰斯——NSA作为能真正查明此事的情报首脑机构（我多年來一直强调），只有他们能判定俄罗斯是否入侵了DNC。因为NSA能监控并回溯整个互联网。罗杰斯的抱怨证明，NSA和FBI在9月提出的'低可信度'评估到12月仍未改变。所谓俄罗斯黑客入侵的指控根本不是来自NSA...

That they are basically that they all need to be on the same page of a scam. But sorry, Mike Rogers. The NSA, which is the premier intelligence agency that will be able to actually reach this conclusion, and I've been putting this out for years, that the NSA is the premier agency that could tell us whether or not Russia hacked and leaked the DNC. Because, basically, they can see and they can rewind the entire Internet. And the fact that Mike Rogers is complaining there shows that that low confidence assertion assessment that the NSA and the FBI had back in September had not changed in December and that all this this allegation of Russian hacking and leaking, it didn't come from the NSA.

而是来自CIA——来自拒绝向NSA出示证据的约翰·布伦南及其盟友詹姆斯·克拉珀。此事意义重大。

It came from the CIA, came from John Brennan and his ally, James Clapper, who were refusing to show the NSA the basis for that conclusion. It's an important matter.

看过那份众议院报告就明白他们为何不敢给NSA的罗杰斯看证据——所谓支持'普京意图助特朗普获胜'的机密情报，引用的是'一份劣质报告中某个模糊难辨、无法验证的句子片段'。这比站不住脚还离谱，难怪他们慌得说：'见鬼！绝不能给他看任何东西，让他跟着背书就完了'。

Know, having seen that House report, why they did not wanna show the underlying evidence to Mike Rogers at NSA because it was, quote, one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports, which was the only classified information cited to suggest Putin, quote, aspired to help Trump win. It was flimsier than flimsy. And there's a reason that they were like, holy shit. We're not gonna show him anything. Just go along to get along.

我们的说辞必须保持一致。继续吧，亚伦。

Our story needs to be the same. Go ahead, Aaron.

为了明确起见，正是基于这个句子片段，得出了普京渴望帮助特朗普胜选的结论。迈克·罗杰斯在那封邮件中抱怨的是，他尚未看到将黑客攻击和泄密归咎于俄罗斯的情报证据。他的意思是，你们没有向我们的人展示过这些。对，正是如此。

And just to be clear, so that that sentence fragment, that was used for the conclusion that Putin aspired to help Trump win. What Mike Rogers is complaining about in that email, is that he has not been shown the intelligence to blame Russia for the hack and leak. He's saying that, like, you have not shown our people. Yeah. Exactly.

正是如此。

Exactly.

好的。

Okay.

没错。而且我们不知道那个依据是什么。我们只知道当时FBI依赖的是为希拉里·克林顿服务的公司CrowdStrike，该公司最先指控俄罗斯黑客攻击民主党全国委员会。从图尔西·加巴德公布的其他情报文件可知，他们仍在依赖CrowdStrike。而早在九月份，FBI和NSA就表示对该指控信心不足，因为他们没有看到技术细节。

Yep. And we don't know what that basis is. All we know is that the FBI at that time was relying on CrowdStrike, a firm working for Hillary Clinton, which had first blamed Russia for hacking the DNC. And we know from other intelligence documents that Tulsi Gabbard has released, they were still relying on CrowdStrike. And we know that back in September, the FBI and the NSA said they had low confidence in that allegation because they were not shown the technical details.

这凸显出两个月后，中情局和詹姆斯·克拉珀办公室仍在拒绝向最适合判断俄罗斯是否黑客攻击并泄露DNC资料的NSA提供情报。他们没有向NSA展示相关信息，没有让他们看到——

And this underscores that two months later, the f p the CIA and James Clapper's office were still denying the NSA the best placed intelligence agency to make this judgment on whether Russia hacked and linked the DNC. They were not showing them the information. They were not showing them the

能源情报。难以置信。好吧，我们继续。下一个，第四站。

energy intelligence. Incredible. Okay. Let's keep going. Next one, stop four.

她把这事渲染成特朗普及其盟友多年来一直在寻找的铁证。但她公布的任何内容都无法支撑其关于叛国阴谋的指控。尽管如此，她还是向司法部提交了刑事转介信，本质上就是说：嘿伙计们，你们真该对此展开刑事调查。

She is making this out like the smoking gun that Trump and his allies have been searching for for all these years. Nothing that she has released backs up her claim of a treasonous conspiracy. But despite that, she sends a criminal referral to the justice department, essentially a letter saying, hey, guys. You really need to conduct a criminal investigation into this.

没有阴谋的证据。这和迈克尔刚才说的那件事有关联，就是——不，我们并没有文件写着'让我们合谋通过宣称特朗普当选全靠普京来破坏他的总统任期'。但你确实拥有法律上所说的强有力间接证据，这些事件链充分表明：他们改变了关于俄罗斯的说辞，这是奥巴马授意的，且关键人物愿意忽视拙劣证据来支持其理论，同时无视反驳证据。

No evidence of a conspiracy. This is kind of related to the one we just did, Michael, where it's like, no. That we don't have a document saying, let's all conspire to undermine the Trump presidency by saying it was only made possible thanks to Vladimir Putin. But you do have what we in the law would refer to as a strong circumstantial case showing the series of events that strongly suggest that there was a reversal in what they were gonna say about Russia, that it happened at Obama's direction, and that it happened thanks to key players being willing to overlook crappy evidence to support their theory and ignore evidence that undermined it.

是啊。我觉得难以证明阴谋的原因在于，每个人本就清楚自己在特定职位上该做什么。所以我认为他专注于此点——这也是某些共和党人的关注重点——其实是方向错了。真正的重点应该是情报体系改革，确保中情局不再干预我们的民主制度。

Yeah. I mean, think that I think it's just the reason it's so hard to prove a conspiracy is that everybody already knows what they're supposed to do based on what their position is at any given time. And so I think that by him focusing on that, I think that it's also been a focus of some Republicans. I think it's the wrong focus. I think the focus really should be on things like intelligence community reform to make sure that the CIA doesn't interfere in our democracy again.

我同意Michael的观点，目前提出刑事指控的共谋案听起来确实难以证实。像Tulsi Gabbard所做的那样，透明度和问责制才是最佳前进方向。但透明化的前提是需要一个至少基本诚实的媒体来报道。Michael Schmidt指出《纽约时报》拒绝报道所有与其叙事相悖的事实。讽刺的是，他一边批评Tulsi Gabbard和特朗普政府在没有依据的情况下向司法部推送共谋指控，一边自己却在做类似的事。

Well, I agree with Michael that a conspiracy case, it just sounds like a tough thing to prove at this this point to bring criminal charges on the front. And I I think transparency and accountability is the best way forward as Tulsi Gabbard is doing. The problem with transparency is that you need to have a, like, a minimally honest media to report on it. And Michael Schmidt is underscoring that New York Times refuses to report on all the facts that undermine their, narrative. And can we the irony, he's criticizing Tulsi Gabbard and the Trump administration for pushing conspiracy allegations into the justice department without a basis.

这听起来熟悉吗？让我想起基于乔治·帕帕多普洛斯——一个低级特朗普竞选志愿者——最薄弱线索的'通俄门'调查。他们在毫无根据的情况下，将其扩展成针对候选人特朗普乃至总统特朗普与俄罗斯共谋的庞大反间谍调查。Michael Schmidt可曾说过这项对特朗普的共谋调查毫无根据？从未。

Does that sound like anything? That sounds to me like the Russia investigation, which was based on the flimsiest tip about George Papadopoulos, a low level Trump campaign volunteer. Based on nothing, they expanded that into a sprawling counterintelligence investigation of first candidate Trump and then president Trump for engaging in a conspiracy with Russia. Did Michael Schmidt ever say that the this conspiracy investigation of Trump is is baseless and based on no evidence? No.

他通过发布骗局策划者的虚假报道助推此事。我之前漏掉了关键一点：Michael Schmidt在2017年2月合著的文章中虚假宣称特朗普竞选团队与俄罗斯高级情报人员多次接触。几年后，他像许多蹭'通俄门'热度的人一样出了本相关书籍，全书都在讲这个议题。

He promoted it, and he peddled it by putting out false stories by the people behind the hoax. And I missed a crucial point when when I was talking before about this article that Michael Schmidt co wrote in February 2017, this fake claim that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence. So Michael Schmidt writes that in February 2017. A few years later, he comes out with a book about Russiagate as so many of these people did just trying to cash in on the Russiagate craze. His whole book is about Russiagate.

猜猜Michael Schmidt的书中完全没提什么？他绝口不提自己关于'特朗普团队接触俄高级情报官'的报道。你怎么能先写报道说特朗普团队与俄间谍接触，然后出书时——

Guess what story Michael Schmidt doesn't even mention in his entire book? He doesn't mention his own story claiming that the Trump campaign had senior had contacts with senior, Russian intelligence officers. How are you gonna write a story claiming that the Trump campaign was talking to Russian spies and then write a book on

却

it and

对自己的报道只字不提？因为你知道那是谎言。他承认过吗？当然没有。

not even mention your own story? Because you know it's a lie. He ever owned up to it? No. Of course not.

难以置信。我比你们更倾向于从法律等角度证明共谋。作为出庭律师，我知道法庭辩论如何展开。我会从2016年12月8日说起——当时情报界准备总统简报时还淡化了俄罗斯在大选中的作用。

That's incredible. I don't know. I am more bullish on showing a conspiracy legally and otherwise than you guys are. I mean, I've tried cases, I know how arguments are made in court. And you would go in there and you would say, let me take you back to 12/08/2016, when the intelligence community was getting ready to offer a presidential daily brief that if anything downplayed the role Russia had in the election that The United States had just been through.

当时FBI拒绝加入该情报评估。随后奥巴马白宫紧急召集所有高层情报官员，在总统幕僚长指挥下12小时内彻底逆转了对俄结论方向。我们怎么知道逆转了？

At that time, they looked at it. The FBI said it wasn't gonna join that intelligence assessment. And the next thing we knew, the Obama White House had called together all of its top intel officials across the government. And with the direction of the chief of staff of president Barack Obama within twelve hours had completely reversed the direction they were going on their Russian conclusions. And how do we know they had reversed?

因为有备忘录写明'遵照总统指示重新评估'。几小时后，《纽约时报》《华盛顿邮报》就报道了这个新指令——'普京干预助选特朗普'。不出所料，30天内官方情报评估就得出相同结论。

Because there's a memo that says, per the president's direction, we're going to do a new assessment. And within hours of that, it hit the media. It hit the New York Times. It hit the Washington Post. They told us what the new directive was.

我们有邮件证明他们赶在特朗普就职前仓促发布。这些Clapper的邮件白纸黑字记录在案。

It was Putin interfered to help Trump. Surprise, surprise, within thirty days, there was an official intelligence community assessment saying exactly that. We'll show you the emails showing there was a rush to get it out before the new president Donald Trump took office. That's in writing. You can see it right here from Clapper in emails.

而在此期间，这些情报官员曾收到警告——多亏荷兰方面泄露的情报——希拉里·克林顿有一个阴谋，要将唐纳德·特朗普与俄罗斯人虚假地联系起来。他们明知此事会发生，却在事情发生时没有保持警惕并予以驳斥。政府中大部分最党派化的成员却抓住这一点，喜闻乐见，添油加醋，将其付诸文字并交给《纽约时报》。他们破坏了特朗普总统的第一个任期。他们改变了时任美国总统与俄罗斯的关系，这一点他自己也直接说过。

And all the while, these intelligence officials had been warned, thanks to intelligence leaked to them by the Dutch, that Hillary Clinton had a plot to falsely tie Donald Trump to the Russians. They knew it was coming when it came instead of having their hackles up and dismissing it. Large portions of the government, the ones who were the most partisan, jumped on it, loved it, massaged it, embellished it, and put it in writing and gave it to The New York Times. They undermined president Trump's first term. They changed the relationship that the sitting president of The United States had with Russia, and he has said that himself directly.

如果这都不算是一场针对现任美国总统的阴谋破坏，那我就不知道什么才算了。这就是我的论证方式。好了，我们继续。第五段同期声。

And if that's not a conspiracy to undermine a sitting US president, I don't know what it isn't, what is one. So that's how I would make the case. Okay. Let's keep going. SOT five.

中情局局长约翰·拉特克利夫发布了一份报告，也对2016年的情报评估提出了质疑。具体如何？该报告并未反驳2016年评估的核心结论，但对报告的制作方法提出了异议。报告指出整个过程过于仓促，高层官员的介入程度过深。

The head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, puts out a report that also casts doubt on the 2016 intelligence assessment. How so? The report doesn't dispute the central finding of the 2016 assessment, But it takes issue with the tradecraft for how the report was produced. It says that the process was rushed. It says that top officials were far too involved in it.

报告还称分析师们承受了要求达成结论的压力。

And it says that there was pressure on analysts to reach a conclusion.

对此有什么看法，亚伦？

Thoughts on that one, Aaron?

我同意众议院情报委员会主席里克·克劳福德的看法——如果我没记错他的名字——他称那份报告是在粉饰太平，我深表认同。我认为拉特克利夫的审查对中情局报告过于温和。这反映出一个问题，几年前我采访卡什·帕特尔时他就谈到过，他说自己在特朗普首个任期内竭力想要公布希普西报告，但包括特朗普任命的人在内的许多官员，就是不愿让情报界难堪，因为这很尴尬。你这是在揭露美国最高情报层级的大规模欺诈行为。即便是政治立场对立的人，有些也不愿触及这个雷区。

I agree with the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rick Crawford, I believe is his name, where he called that report a whitewash, and I agree. I think that that Ratcliffe review treated the CIA report with kid gloves. And it speaks to a problem that, you know, Kash Patel talked to me about a few years ago when I interviewed him where he just said that, you know, he was struggling to release the Hipsy report during the first Trump term, but many people, including Trump appointees, just did not wanna embarrass the intelligence community, because it's awkward. You're you're you're exposing here a massive fraud at the highest levels of of US intelligence. And some people, even if they're on the opposing side of the political aisle, just don't wanna go there.

那个关键结论——特别是关于普京想帮助特朗普的那条——被中情局采纳了。在那份中情局报告中，如果我没记错的话，他们审视了这个作为ICA核心的结论后质问：你们究竟是怎么把这条结论以‘高度确信’的措辞写进去的？这是个谎言。你们根本没有足够依据支持这个‘高度确信’。

That key finding, that one in particular, that Putin wanted to help Trump was taken on by the CIA. And in that CIA report, correct me if I'm wrong, they looked at that conclusion, which was central to the ICA and said, How on earth did you put that in there with quote, high confidence? That's a lie. You didn't have high confidence behind that.

没错。他们还特别点名约翰·布伦南存在偏见，并试图将斯蒂尔档案纳入报告。但希普西报告包含了最翔实的证据，因为它展示了所有支撑该评估的原始情报。如果你读过那份报告，在了解到我们从希普西报告中获悉的所有内容后，怎么可能还继续为情报界的评估辩护？尽管有人会抓住任何可能的借口，但希普西报告公布的信息才是最全面的——因为他们想坚持‘俄罗斯干预助选特朗普’的叙事，而对此最彻底的调查正是希普西完成的，它向我们揭示了原始情报的真相。

Yeah. And they also, singled out John Brennan for basically being biased and for trying to, include the Steele dossier. But, again, the Hipsey report has the most facts in it because it it shows us all the underlying intelligence that went into this assessment. And if if you read that report, how can you possibly walk away defending the intelligence community assessment when you, find out all the things that we learned from from Hipsey. So, again, you know, people will wanna point to anything they can but the information that is most comprehensive that was released by the Hipsey report because they wanna hold on to the narrative that Russia interfered to help Trump when, again, the most sweeping look at that was conducted by Hipsey, which showed us the underlying intelligence.

原始情报根本支撑不了这个结论。

The underlying intelligence simply didn't support it.

所以斯米茨对《纽约时报》读者说，现任中情局长拉特克利夫的这份报告，在回顾2017年1月的ICA时，并未反驳ICA的核心结论。要我说，ICA最重要的结论就是普京干预大选以帮助特朗普。这才是他们真正想要的结论——帮助特朗普。而报告确实如此。

So Smitsch says to the New York Times audience that Radcliffe's current this is the current CIA director. Radcliffe's report, looking back at that January 17 ICA, does not dispute the central finding of the ICA. Well, I mean, the biggest finding of the ICA was that Putin interfered to help Trump. That was the one they really wanted, to help Trump. And it does.

这确实对此提出质疑。报告指出，你们怎么可能以高度自信得出那个结论？那个充满抱负的判断根本不值得中情局和联邦调查局赋予其如此高的信心等级。迈克尔·施密特却对此只字未提。好吧。

It does dispute that. It says, how could you have possibly reached that with high confidence? That aspired judgment did not merit the high confidence level that the CIA and FBI attached to it. Unmentioned by Michael Schmidt. Okay.

我们继续往下看，因为我认为这才是我们一直期待的重头戏。

Let's keep going because this is, I think, the big one that we've been waiting to get to.

作为评估的一部分，中情局掌握了那份档案。记得吗？就是那个由英国间谍搜集的、关于特朗普与俄罗斯关系的未经证实指控汇编，被作为附录附在评估报告后面。嗯。但评估并非基于这份档案，它并未对结论产生影响。

As part of the assessment, the CIA had the dossier. Remember that compilation of unsubstantiated allegations dug up by a British spy about Trump's ties to Russia attached as an annex to the assessment. Mhmm. The assessment was not based on the dossier. It didn't play a role in the conclusions.

但报告本质上是在说，这份被称为档案的未经证实文件，从一开始就不该被附上。正因为它被附上，才让整个主张蒙上了怀疑的阴影。

But what the report is essentially saying is that this unsubstantiated document called the dossier, it should never have been attached in the first place. And because it was attached, it casts some doubt on the entire claim.

这可真是个重磅炸弹，亚伦。

This is a doozy, Aaron.

首先，注意他用来描述所谓档案的措辞。他称之为未经证实。这就是一堆阴谋论小说。彻头彻尾的谎言。联邦调查局每次试图核实档案内容，结果都证明其中空无一物，克里斯托弗·斯蒂尔就是个骗子。

First of all, note the language he uses to describe the the so called dossier. He calls it unsubstantiated. It's a collection of conspiracy fiction. It's a complete lie. Every FBI effort to, verify the dossier just kept leading to the fact that there's nothing here, that Christopher Steele is a fraudster.

而施密特用未经证实这种温和说法淡化了性质，仿佛它仍有可能属实——因为他自己手脚干净

And Schmidt waters that down by calling it unsubstantiated as if it still might be true because he's clean

而且他也没称之为斯蒂尔档案。

And doesn't call it the Steele dossier either.

没错。这就是虚构。完完全全的虚构。就像希拉里·克林顿出资购买的阴谋幻想小说——这点我刚才没听他提到——而联邦调查局居然采信了这种东西。

Yeah. Right. It's it's fiction. It's it's it's it's just complete fiction. It's like it it's conspiracy fantasy that Hillary Clinton paid for, which, I didn't hear him mention there, and that the FBI relied on.

简直荒谬至极。这是第一点。其次，他说斯蒂尔档案摘要只是作为附录附上，并未出现在正文中。他却忽视了最新解密文件揭示的事实：情报界评估报告正文里其实有个脚注写着参见附录，实际意思就是参见斯蒂尔档案。所以他们试图宣扬俄罗斯帮助特朗普的观点时，在情报界评估报告正文里就做了引用，不仅仅是附录。

And it's just a complete joke. So that's the first thing. And then, also, he he says that this was attached a summary of the Steele dossier was attached as an annex, but it wasn't in the main body. He's ignoring the fact that now we know, from the recent declassifications that, actually, there's a footnote in the body of the intelligence community assessment, and it says, see annex, but by which they mean see the steel dossier. So in trying to put forward this idea that Russia was trying to help Trump, they reference in the body of the ICA, not just as an annex.

他们在脚注中提及，指引你参考附录，这意味着斯蒂尔档案被纳入了情报界评估报告的主体部分。

They they have a footnote rep, referring you to the annex, which means the Steele dossier is in the body of the ICA.

让我重申施密特的说法。他声称该评估——即情报界评估——并非基于那份档案，且对结论无影响。首先我们要反驳这一基本前提：它确实在脚注中被引用。

And let let me just reiterate what Schmidt claimed. He said the assessment, that intelligence community assessment, was not based on the dossier. It did not play a role in the conclusions. And so first we are disputing the basic premise there. It is referenced in a footnote.

支持‘普京试图帮助特朗普’的脚注写道：请查看展示材料、附录，尤其是那份档案。这作为报告主体中的证据，支撑着最具争议的评估结论——普京干预选举以助特朗普胜选。继续往下说。

The footnote that supports Putin was trying to help Trump says, look at the exhibit. Look at the appendix. And specifically, look at the dossier. That is in the body of the report as the proof of one of the most or if not, it is the most controversial piece of the assessment, which is Putin did this to help Trump get elected. Keep going.

是的。根据最新披露，约翰·布伦南曾力主纳入该档案，因他对其同僚表示‘这听上去就是真的’。这暴露出布伦南深陷‘特朗普与俄罗斯勾结’的阴谋论。施密特对此避而不谈。若中情局局长亲自游说将斯蒂尔虚构档案纳入报告并称其可信，迈克尔·施密特还能坚称这份由布伦南主导的报告未受档案影响吗？尤其当报告正文以脚注形式引用该档案时？他完全无视了推翻其叙事的关键事实——这已是常态。

Yeah. And according to these recent disclosures, John Brennan was pushing for the inclusion of the dossier because as he told, his counterparts, he said, it just rings true, which speaks to the fact that John Brennan was attached to a conspiracy theory that Trump and Russia were in cahoots and that Russia was trying to help Trump. And, of course, Schmidt ignores that. And so if the director of the CIA is campaigning for the steel fiction to be included and is saying that it rings true to him, Does Michael Schmidt really wanna argue that a report produced under under Brendan's direction doesn't, isn't influenced by the Steele dossier, especially when it's referenced in the body of the report as a footnote? So he's completely omitting the countervailing facts undermine his narrative, which is, again, is the norm.

所有分析师和俄罗斯专家都反对：‘不能纳入这个，完全是垃圾’。但布伦南和FBI坚持己见。顺便说，这份档案被放入机密附录——至少200人有权查阅，却疯狂泄露给记者以营造其可信假象。

All the analysts, all the Russia experts are like, we can't include this. This is total garbage. Brennan's insisting on it. The FBI's insisting on it. It's in the classified appendix, by the way, which at least 200 people get, but we know leaked like crazy to all the journalists to create the perception that somehow this document was legitimate.

我们知道这份艾伦所述的欺诈性虚构文件，曾被用于获取监听许可。如此重要的文件，施密特却轻描淡写说‘对情报界评估不重要’，简直是赤裸裸的煤气灯操纵。

We know that that same fraudulent document, this fiction that Aaron describes was used to get the wiretapping, the warrants for the wiretapping. I mean, it's this hugely important document. So for Schmitt to sort of go, oh, it wasn't really important to the ICA, it's just straight up gaslighting at this point.

拉特克利夫公布的这份中情局评估明确指出：斯蒂尔档案被用于支撑‘普京意图帮助特朗普’的结论。报告称：‘最终，机构负责人决定将两页档案摘要作为附录加入评估报告，并声明该材料未用于分析结论。但通过在报告主体中以第四支撑点的形式引用附录，评估报告实际上将未经证实的指控提升为可信证据，损害了分析判断的完整性。’刚公布的众议院情报委员会报告（感谢图尔西）同样指出：时任中情局局长布伦南拒绝移除档案，并反问‘这难道不像是真的吗？’——这与其公开声称‘档案未被纳入评估’的说法矛盾。

The CIA assessment that we've been discussing that Ratcliffe released says the Steele dossier was used to support the conclusion that Putin aspired to help Trump and and reads as follows. Ultimately, agency heads decided to include a two page summary of the dossier as an annex to the ICA with a disclaimer that the material was not used to reach the analytic conclusions. However, by placing a reference to the annex material in the main body of the ICA as the fourth supporting bullet for the judgment that Putin aspired to help Trump win, the ICA implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment. The House Intel report, the other, the HPSI that also just came out, thanks to Tulsi, also states Brennan, then CIA director, refused to remove the dossier from the ICA and said, doesn't it ring true? Contradicting public claims by Brennan that the dossier was not in any way incorporated into the ICA.

布伦南想让我们相信‘我们从未将其纳入评估，它对我们毫无价值’。但档案确实被引用在报告正文中——众议院情报委员会报告揭示了真相。

That's what Brennan wants us to believe. We'd never incorporated it in the ICA. Was a nothingburger to us. The dossier was referenced in the ICA main body text. This is Hipsy telling us the truth.

正如你刚才指出的，艾伦，档案不仅被引用，还在两页附录中详述。涉及档案的情报来源错误违反了多项情报界指令，正常情况下连初级审核都无法通过。此外，档案充斥着荒诞主张，文风充斥着业余阴谋论和政治宣传腔调，其内容理应受到质疑甚至嘲笑。根据众议院报告：两名中情局高级官员（分别来自俄罗斯行动处和分析处）曾与布伦南激烈争辩，指出档案根本不符合基本情报标准，但布伦南拒绝删除。当被指出档案漏洞时，他反问：‘但听起来不像是真的吗？’

It is referenced in there, as you just pointed out, Erin, and further detailed in a two page ICA annex. The ICA sourcing errors involving the dossier violated so many intelligence community directives that the text would normally not have passed first line supervisor review at CIA, FBI, or other intelligence community agencies. Moreover, the dossier made outlandish claims and was written in an amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda tone that invited skepticism, if not ridicule, over its content. Still sticking here with the hipsy conclusions. Two senior CIA officers, one from Russia operations and the other from Russia analysts, argued with Brennan that the dossier should not be included at all in the ICA because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards according to a senior officer present at the meeting.

与此同时，迈克尔·施密特却在忙着‘清理现场’，声称‘评估未基于档案，档案不影响结论’。太虚伪了——它明明影响了。

That same officer said Brennan refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier's many flaws responded, yes, but doesn't it ring true? And then you get Michael Schmidt doing cleanup in Aisle 7 with, the assessment was not based on the dossier. It did not play a role in the conclusions. This is so dishonest. It did play a role.

这是一个支持最重要结论的关键角色。而它出现在附录或引用附录的脚注中的任何形式，都在情报界最资深的俄罗斯问题专家中引发了极大争议，包括中央情报局内部。他们被否决的原因是中央情报局局长声称‘这感觉是真的’。迈克尔·施密特的报道中哪里提到了这一点，无论是在报纸上还是在日常报道中？

It was an important role to support the most important conclusion. And the fact that it was in there in any way, in the annex or in that footnote that referenced the annex, was extremely controversial amongst the most seasoned Russia experts within intelligence community, community, including in the CIA itself. And the reason they were overruled is because the CIA director said it smells true. Where was that in Michael Schmidt's reporting, either in the newspaper or sitting on the daily?

这一切的讽刺之处在于，如果你曾对这些说法持怀疑态度——比如俄罗斯干预、俄罗斯黑客入侵民主党全国委员会、特朗普与俄罗斯勾结——你就会被称作俄罗斯或特朗普的辩护者、阴谋论者。而他们的说辞是‘这是美国情报界的共识，是基于严肃工作的结论’。詹姆斯·克拉珀和约翰·布伦南会上CNN和MSNBC（他们担任特约分析师的地方）宣称这是‘强有力的情报’。但现在我们从解密的文件中看到，实际上这只是少数人——詹姆斯·克拉珀、约翰·布伦南和其他几位党派人士——的共识。

And what's funny about all this is if you were someone who was skeptical of all these claims, you know, Russia interfered, Russia hacked the DNC, Trump Russia collusion, you were called a apologist for for Russia, for for Trump, a conspiracy theorist. And and the line was, you know, how dare this is the consensus of The US intelligence community. I mean, this was done on serious work. And James Clapper and John Brennan would go on CNN and MSNBC where they worked as on air analysts and say, you know, this was robust intelligence. Well, now we're getting like, the picture we're getting from all this declassification was that actually this was just the consensus of a few people, James Clapper, John Brennan, and a few other partisans.

他们手下有许多人提出反对，包括本周我们得知的NSA局长迈克·罗杰斯，他说‘你们没有提供足够情报来支持俄罗斯黑客入侵并泄露民主党邮件的关键结论’，而这正是‘通俄门’的指控源头。当特朗普在赫尔辛基与普京会晤时表示‘普京强烈否认俄罗斯干预，我没有理由怀疑他’，全国一片哗然。约翰·布伦南称特朗普‘简直是叛国’。

And they have all these people under them pushing back, including, we learned this week, Mike Rogers, the head of the NSA, saying you're not showing us the intelligence to reach your most important conclusion that Russia hacked, and leaked Democratic Party emails, which was the allegation that that kicked off Russia gate. When, Donald Trump, at his July in Helsinki with Putin, said that he actually that Putin gave a pretty strong denial that Russia interfered. And he's like he said, I have no reason to doubt him. There was a national freak out. John Brennan said that, Trump was nothing short of treasonous.

顺便说一句，这很讽刺——没人抱怨图尔西·加巴德指控他人叛国，但约翰·布伦南等人多年来却一直用这种言辞攻击特朗普，包括当特朗普质疑情报共识时。事实证明，特朗普和其他拒绝轻信布伦南与克拉珀的人，实际上与那些被他们否决的基层情报官员立场一致。

By the way, which is ironic for people not complaining about, you know, Tulsi Gabbard accusing others of treason. Well, this is what John Brennan and everyone was saying about Trump for years, including when Trump dared question the intelligence consensus. It turns out Trump and everybody else who refused to take the word of John Brennan and James Clapper were actually agreeing with all the lower level intelligence officials who Clapper and Brennan overruled.

这简直令人震惊。说实话，在我大部分报道生涯中，我是那种对情报机构抱有信任的右倾人士。直到现在，揭开帷幕看到他们的腐败、谎言和党派偏见，仍然让我震撼。这是个深刻的教训。

It's it's it's just stunning. I mean, it's just I'll tell you, I was one of those, you know, right leaning people who had trust in these agencies for most of my reporting career. I really did. Like, it's still stunning to me to see the the veil come down and see how corrupt they were and what liars they were, what partisan hacks. It's, it's a lesson well learned.

好了，最后一个猛料——SOP 57。

Alright. Here's the last one, and this is a doozy too. Sop 57.

联邦调查局局长卡什·帕特尔解密了一份情报，声称显示这场阴谋实际源自希拉里·克林顿。

The FBI director, Kash Patel, declassifies a piece of intelligence that he claims shows that this conspiracy, it actually originated with Hillary Clinton.

这暴露了前领导层多么恶毒——他们隐藏文件，把它们放在人们不该查看的地方。幸好我们现在来清理了，你们将见证一波透明化浪潮。但你是说……

That's how vindictive and vicious the former leadership structure here was. They withheld and hid documentation and put it in rooms where people weren't supposed to look. And it's a good thing we're here now to clean it up, and you're about to see a wave of transparency. But are you saying

帕特尔提供了什么证据？一封希拉里盟友间的邮件，称她亲自批准了将特朗普与俄罗斯联系的计划。但帕特尔没说的是：特朗普司法部任命的特别检察官调查‘通俄骗局’时，已认定该邮件可能是伪造的——俄罗斯情报人员整合多封黑客邮件，拼凑出希拉里是阴谋发起者的假象。

And what evidence does Patel offer to support that claim? An email between Clinton allies in which they claim that Clinton personally approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia. But what Patel doesn't say is that a previous special counsel that was appointed by Trump's justice department to look into the Russia hoax determined that the email was likely a fake. Wow. That Russian intelligence officials had taken a range of hacked emails and made them into a composite that depicted Clinton as the originator of the conspiracy.

按理说联邦调查局局长卡什·帕特尔应知情，却仍将其作为‘铁证’公布。

And presumably, the FBI director, Kash Patel, would have known that and yet still released it and treated it as a smoking gun.

没错，这太令人震惊了。顺便说一句，如果你只听他们在法庭上的表述，你会反对这不当弹劾卡什·帕特尔，因为首先他说那是伪造的。然后他又说，实际上他们所做的是利用真实被黑邮件拼凑合成。所以他最终声称那封邮件是假的，但阿伦，他实质上是在承认原始数据是真实的，来自他们入侵希拉里·克林顿及民主党全国委员会相关索罗斯实体时获取的真实邮件。

Correct. Amazing there. By the way, if you just listen to their express words, you know, in in a courtroom, you would object that this was improper impeachment of Kash Patel because, first, he says it was a fake. And then he says, actually what they did was they took actual emails they had hacked and created a composite. So the ultimate email he's saying was fake, but he's essentially admitting there, Aaron, that the underlying data was real and was from actual hacked emails they got when they hacked these entities like the Soros related entities surrounding Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

但你对这一说法的看法是？

But your thoughts on this claim.

再次强调，这很讽刺。这些人抱怨依赖所谓虚假信息，而他们自己却宣扬过斯蒂尔档案——那可是希拉里·克林顿资助的一堆阴谋论合集。所以他们现在试图占据道德高地实在有点可笑。我一直对这些被黑邮件持谨慎态度，据称它们来自俄罗斯情报机构。

Well, again, the irony. These people are complaining about relying on supposedly fake information when they promoted the Steele dossier, for example, which is a cons which a collection of conspiracy theories funded by Hillary Clinton. So it's just a bit rich for them to try to claim a high ground here. You know, I've been cautious about these hacked emails. We're told they come from Russian intelligence.

我暂且采信这种说法，尽管我都不确定是否属实。但我不会全盘相信这些邮件。达勒姆也不确定，他说不知道这些邮件是完全真实、部分伪造还是全部造假。我认为这才是我们应持的立场。

I let's even take that on faith, although I'm not even sure if that's true. But I'm not sure if I take all these emails on faith. You know, Durham is uncertain. He says, I don't know if these are all genuine, if they're partly fake, fully fake. And I I think that is the line that that that we should take.

我们无法确知真伪。若属实，不过是再次印证已知事实——这才是关键。我们不需要这些邮件来了解真相：希拉里·克林顿曾构陷特朗普是俄罗斯间谍。这一点无可争议。在这些所谓俄罗斯邮件出现数月前，希拉里竞选团队就通过Fusion GPS雇用了克里斯托弗·斯蒂尔。

We don't know for sure if they're true or not. If they are true, it's more evidence of what we already know, and that's my key point. We don't need these emails to know exactly what happened, which was that Hillary Clinton framed Trump as a Russian, agent. I mean, it it's beyond dispute. Months before these allegedly Russian emails, were, written, the Hillary Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele, via Fusion GPS.

克里斯托弗·斯蒂尔编造了特朗普与俄罗斯勾结、被普京勒索的虚构故事。他将这些阴谋论输送给FBI——7月初会见FBI探员后，几周内FBI就启动了'通俄门'调查，并将斯蒂尔档案作为信源。

Christopher Steele put together a bunch of fiction about Trump and Russia being cahoots, Trump being blackmailed by Putin. Christopher Steele funneled his conspiracy theories into the FBI. He meets with an FBI agent in early July. It gets back to the FBI. A few weeks later, the FBI opens up its Trump Russia investigation and uses the Steele dossier as source material.

直到2017年10月我们才得知，希拉里竞选团队终于承认他们秘密资助了斯蒂尔档案。这就是一场针对特朗普的构陷，《纽约时报》至今无法直面这点，因为他们也曾参与散播这个阴谋论。

We only learn, I believe, in October 2017. That's when the Hillary Clinton campaign finally admitted that they were secretly funding the Steele dossier. There wasn't a Clinton effort to frame Trump, and that's what the New York Times cannot grapple with because they were a part of peddling that conspiracy theory.

顺便说，施密特在此玩的把戏是：他指向那份庞大解密附件中的某个片段，声称FBI找过索罗斯方面的人，对方否认了。但即便在那次FBI与索罗斯人士的访谈中，对方也承认部分邮件确实像他的口吻，并未完全否认。整件事极其复杂，但大局未变——施密特通过树立稻草人并驳斥来否定更庞大的证据体系。

And all Schmidt's doing here, by the way, the the trick he's pulling is he's pointing to a single part of that really large declassified annex and saying they went to the Soros guy. He said it wasn't him. Even in that interview between the FBI and the Soros guy, the Soros guy says that some of the emails did sound like him. He didn't say for sure that it wasn't him at all. So again, it's like there's so much complexity here, but the big picture remains the same, which is that Schmidt is creating straw men and dismissing them as a way to dismiss this much larger body of evidence.

这实际上揭示了海量信息与潜在犯罪活动，但FBI选择不追究，反而操纵情报将特朗普塑造成普京傀儡，借此获取监听许可并向媒体泄密制造假新闻，最终让事态像滚雪球般扩大。

And that really what it shows is just a huge amount of information, a potential criminal activity that the FBI decides not to pursue. And instead, you're basically creating and manipulating intelligence in order to paint Trump as a Putin puppet, in order to get the wiretaps, in order to leak that to the media to create disinformation So everything would just sort of end up snowballing over time.

他们从一开始就带着政治议程，至今未变。非常感谢两位，这番讨论极具启发性。也感谢观众们本周的陪伴，下周一我们将与沃尔特·柯克继续节目。

They were agenda driven from the start and they remain agenda driven. Guys, thank you both so much. This has been so clarifying, very helpful. And thanks to all of you for joining us today and this week. We're back on Monday with Walter Kirk.

到时见。感谢收听梅根·凯利秀。不废话，无议程，无所畏惧。大峡谷大学，一所位于亚利桑那州美丽凤凰城的私立基督教大学，相信我们的造物主赋予了我们某些不可剥夺的权利，包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。GCU坚信机会均等，美国梦始于人生目标。

See you then. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.

通过践行职业使命，你能影响家人、朋友和社区。以他人为先，让世界变得更美好。无论你追求的是学士、硕士还是博士学位，GCU的在线、校园及混合式学习环境，都旨在帮助你实现独特的学术、个人和职业目标。截至2024年9月，GCU提供340多个学术项目，根据你的现状提供助力梦想成真的路径。服务他人的追求，由你掌握。

By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours.

让这份追求茁壮成长。在大峡谷大学找到你的人生目标。私立、基督教、学费可负担。访问gcu.edu。

Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu.