All language subtitles for Im.Not.Into.Golden.Showers.2025.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.GG - YTS.BZ]

Downloaded from
YTS.BZ

Hi, my name is Stormy Daniels,

and I'm sure you've
heard of me by now.

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.BZ

I'll be narrating
and you'll see me

popping up in this
film from time to time.

You may have
heard about my recent

courtroom appearance in a case

called The People of New
York versus Donald J. Trump.

You see, Trump lied
about our sexual encounter.

And then covered it up by
falsifying business records.

In doing so,
he unlawfully influenced

the 2016 presidential election.

On May 30th, 2024,
Donald Trump was

convicted of
committing 34 felonies.

He's the first U.S. president

ever convicted of a felony

and not just 1, 34.

Go big or go home, right?

Justice can be a real bitch.

Right now, I want to tell you
how Vladimir Putin

also interfered
in the 2016 election,

and how Donald
Trump keeps talking

about a little something called

'golden showers'.

So come for the water sports
and stay for the collusion.

(lounge music)

And the whole
Russia investigation?

It was all phony shit.

Okay, all phony stuff.

I'm not into golden showers!

Yes, he actually said this.

Wait, what? Nobody
even asked him.

Not recently.

Then why is his hair goldenrod?

You know the great thing,

our great first lady -

That one, she said.

I don't believe that one!

Yes, he actually said this.

So Melania believes
all the others?

Like what?

Like the ones
about about a goat.

Goat?

Just a rumor.

So to recap, in conclusion,

and furthermore,
I'm not into golden showers

and even Melania
didn't believe that one.

So anyway,
thanks for coming tonight.

I love you people.

And don't forget to empty
your wallets on the way out.

So was that a one-off?

Not exactly.

And the phony Steele dossier?

It was all phony.

How'd you like to
be me and go home

and explain that one to my wife?

Darling, it wasn't true.

I swear it wasn't.

Remember that one with
the hookers from Russia.

Russia, Russia, Russia?

How about going home
to my wife on the shower,

you know? The golden
shower they called it.

And I had to explain
that to our great first lady.

This is the greatest witch hunt.

It started with Russia, Russia,
Russia. Remember that?

He was with four hookers.

You think that was good that
night to go up and tell my wife

it's not true darling,
I love you very much.

It's not true!

Four hookers.
That's interesting

since the rumor never
mentioned any number.

Trump does protest too much.

He keeps bringing
up the pee pee tape.

(laughs)

When other people
do stop talking

about it, he brings it up again.

The rumor is that there's actual

video evidence
that this happened.

So... I've not seen the video,
but I'd watch it.

(jaunty music)

In 2016, Donald Trump
defeated Hillary Clinton

to win the White House.

The Russians
interfered in that election

on behalf of their
favored candidate,

Donald Trump.

In the phony Steele dossier.

It was all phony.

The Steele dossier was unvetted

opposition research
compiled in 2016,

and it included
explosive reports

about Donald Trump
and the Russians.

And the allegation of
a salacious videotape.

Trump claims the investigation
into his campaign's

many connections to Russia was
sparked by the Steele dossier.

What do you say
we fact-check that?

The idea that the
Russia investigation

was based on the Steele dossier
is just categorically false.

There's been much talk about a
man named Christopher Steele

and a research product
that he put together,

something that's been
called opposition research

that happens all
the time at high

levels when there's an election.

People, candidates
looking for so-called dirt,

looking to understand
vulnerabilities

of the opposition candidate.

So Chris Steele is a former
British intelligence officer.

He was respected.

He was a Russian specialist

within the British
intelligence services.

And that Steele put things

in his research product
that were not substantiated

or confirmed or accurate, has
been used by Donald Trump

and his supporters to say that
therefore, the FBI investigation

that predicated
the special counsel

investigation, all
has to get thrown out.

And what's been
found is the contrary.

It is a fallacy to say that
if you successfully attack

the Christopher Steele dossier,

you somehow have
successfully attacked

the predication for the FBI

investigation and
then the subsequent

special counsel investigation.

The truth is that
that's not what

led to those investigations.

So the investigation was opened

at the end of July,
based on this

tip from a friendly
foreign nation.

Later in mid-September, I think

19th,
if memory serves correctly,

we received a body of
information, a series of reports

that had been generated by an

individual named
Christopher Steele.

Now, again,
the important fact is that's

not what generated
the investigation.

The investigation
was up and running.

The bulk of Mueller's

efforts and prosecutions
made no use

of the Steele
dossier whatsoever.

This is somebody

that had had an established

relationship and had
and was respected.

So having that
information come in

again, it's a very
reasonable thing,

I think, for the FBI to take
a look at and say, all right,

you're providing
this information.

We'll take a look at it
and we'll try and figure out

whether or not it's accurate
and actionable or not.

My opinion on the
Steele dossier is

that it's valuable
as raw intelligence,

just as if we obtained
unverified information

about a terrorist group,
for example,

from sources
in a terrorist cell.

We'd want the FBI
and the intelligence

community to follow up to see

what is actually true or not,

what might be borne out
and provide leads.

And I think that that's what the
FBI did with that information.

In January of 2017, BuzzFeed

published the
Steele dossier online.

(tense music)

This is the greatest witch hunt.

It started with Russia,
Russia, Russia.

Remember that?

All counterintelligence
investigations

require what's
called predication.

And what that
means is that there

have to be articulable facts

that there is a threat
to national security.

And the predication in the
case of the Russia investigation

was intelligence provided to
the United States by Australia,

indicating that Russia might be

trying to use
weaponized information

in order to interfere
in the 2016 election.

In the midst of
all that activity,

a friendly foreign
government saw,

and certainly former
President Trump, then

candidate Trump,
was making statements

pointing to this activity and
talking about all the things

that were being disclosed
through these leaks.

And in the midst
of all this activity,

in late July,
a friendly foreign nation

recalled a meeting that they
had had earlier in the spring

with a Trump
campaign adviser

a named campaign
adviser with that,

and whose name was
George Papadopoulos,

and that Papadopoulos had told

this representative of
a friendly foreign nation

that the Trump
campaign had received an

offer of assistance
from the Russians,

saying that they had information
that would be damaging to both

then President Obama and Hillary
Clinton, and that they offered

to release it in a way that
would help the Trump campaign.

And so at the time,
in the early spring,

they didn't make
much of that statement,

didn't know whether or
not it was a boast or not.

But then when that
actually started happening,

when this information that was

helpful to Trump
was being released

and Trump was picking it up
and amplifying it, they recalled

and put two and two
together and said,

well, wait a minute,
what is going on

now is exactly what
Papadopoulos sort

of told us about
earlier in the spring.

The case that was open,
we called Crossfire Hurricane

and I'm a big
Rolling Stones fan,

and so I was listening to
Jumpin' Jack Flash at the time.

♪ I was born in a
crossfire hurricane ♪

And that was, you know,
kind of in the background,

I was trying to
think about what to

name the case,
and it seemed like

I didn't understand
how appropriate

it would really end up being.

But that was just kind of a spur

of the moment
naming of the case.

And again, the case was opened,
not on just George Papadopoulos,

but broadly on the suggestion,
because Papadopoulos didn't say

I received this information.

He said somebody
on the campaign had.

So the question was, you know,
it's what's called that,

you know, an unknown subject. We
don't know one, if that's true,

but you know, it

given that Papadopoulos
was a named

advisor to Trump,
you know, Trump himself

named him when he was asked,
hey, you

know who's on your
foreign policy team?

Trump identified Papadopoulos.

This wasn't despite
Trump's later statement

that, you know, Papadopoulos
was some coffee boy.

The fact of the matter was,
when asked

by, I think,
the Washington Post,

who is your foreign policy team?

Trump reeled off
a bunch of names,

which included
George Papadopoulos.

If you want, I could give
you some of the names.

I would be delighted.

George Papadopoulos.

He's an oil and
energy consultant.

Excellent guy.

So opening the case,
opening Crossfire Hurricane,

the goal of that investigation

was to figure out okay, did
in fact, this offer take place?

Who received that offer?

And then, as importantly,
if they heard that offer,

did anybody on the
campaign then take action

to follow up on that
offer of assistance?

A lot of people, you know,
in the sort of

popular discussion,
certainly from

opponents of the investigation,

was that the FBI
was going after Trump

and that absolutely
wasn't the case.

We opened this very
specific case on this one

particular allegation to find
out who a person or people were

that might have
received this information

or offer of assistance or not.

All of these things kind
of come to a head when

he takes that affirmative
step to fire Comey,

certainly in a way
that is designed

or appears to be designed,
to stop these investigations.

So, two things happen.

One, that is, you know,
a very strong indication

or an allegation of obstruction,

that he was doing
that potentially

in a manner designed to obstruct
the investigation of him.

And then two,
that gives a question,

because all of this
related to Russia,

what is the counterintelligence
threat there

between
Trump and Russia?

And of course, what's one
of the first things he did?

He has Ambassador Kislyak,
Russian ambassador,

he has Sergey
Lavrov,at the time,

the Russian foreign minister,

in the Oval Office,
and is bragging to them,

I just fired Comey. Took a
huge weight off my shoulders.

There are a lot of connections
to Russia that were concerning,

and there was sort
of an ongoing debate.

I mean, you get to a
point where the

threshold to open
a case is fairly low.

That doesn't mean
you necessarily open it.

And there were
some on the team that

were arguing that we should open

a case on Trump earlier
than we did,

earlier than Comey's firing.

You know, I was against it.

I mean, there any
number of real significant

policy questions,
legal questions,

constitutional questions.

And so for all of those reasons,
I was very hesitant and reticent

to go down the path of opening
the case on Trump, the person.

The firing of

FBI Director James Comey led to

the appointment
of Robert Mueller

as special counsel to lead
the Russia investigation.

The Mueller team found

that Russia's operations were
systematic and widespread.

So Russian interference
and attempts to aid

candidate Donald Trump
have been well-established.

If people will simply read

and open their minds to
certain findings, both in

Robert Mueller’s special counsel
report, 400 some odd pages,

and then even in the Senate
Intelligence Committee report,

which at the time was
chaired by a Republican.

So in 2016,
the United States was pretty

much asleep to the
fact that the Russians

were using
disinformation as a weapon

to sow discord and polarization.

So the Russians
really had free rein to

do what they wanted
in the United States.

And they went about it a
couple of different ways.

Their biggest campaign
was through social media,

to mask their social
media accounts

as trying to be
Americans. The I.R.A.

or the Russian
proxy organization

was prominent in that space,
running

bots and trolls to kind of suck

in Americans to their point of
view and enhance polarization.

So one is social media campaign.

The second is they were doing
hack and release operations.

So if you've ever
heard of Guccifer

2.0, that is a Russian
hacking operation

by the GRU to grab
information and selectively

leak it again to
enhance polarization

within the United States.

And lastly, they were
hacking into voter databases

and gathering huge
amounts of data rolls.

There was concern at the
time that that information

was going to be
used to actually disrupt

the physical
infrastructure of the vote.

People would claim

that there was no really Russian
influence operations in 2016.

That I find to be astounding,
that people would repeat that.

For a while, people and still do

say that there was
no impact, right?

Like you cannot prove

that the Russians
changed a vote or

someone's mind
in the United States.

I think as kind of the research
behind this has continued,

and people have looked at
this and serious professionals,

I think, across whether they're
in government, academia

or the private sector,
no longer believe

that this is not
a serious threat.

And it was a serious
threat in 2016.

And the Russian
influence operations

have some level of influence

within the United States.

And so the special
counsel investigation

actually ended up indicting
two dozen Russians.

Twelve of those
Russians were actual

card-carrying
Russian intelligence

officers with the
Russian military

intelligence service, the GRU.

Well, good afternoon.

Today, a grand jury in
the District of Columbia

returned an indictment presented
by the special counsel's office.

The indictment charges 12

Russian military
officers by name

for conspiring to interfere with
the 2016 presidential election.

Eleven of the defendants

are charged with conspiring
to hack into computers,

steal documents,
and release those documents

with the intent to
interfere in the election.

One of those defendants and
a 12th Russian military officer

are charged with conspiring
to infiltrate computers

of organizations involved
in administering elections.

So when people say,
to me, well, the Russian,

the investigation
into Russian influence

in the campaign found nothing,

I say you haven't
read the reports.

You're listening only to one
source of news and information,

and it's a flawed source
of news and information.

The Internet Research Agency is

located in Saint Petersburg,
Russia.

(tense music)

And they spent
millions before 2016

through 2016 and
quite frankly,

have reconstituted
themselves twice over

really the same organization
still within Saint Petersburg.

And so pre-2016,

they ran a notorious and
well-documented troll farm

where they were basically
paying employees to,

they had a quota
system where they had to,

put out so many tweets
and other kind of posts

from a kind of select
menu that were all designed

of things that they
were looking to cause

polarization in the
United States, right?

And the people that are really
behind it, which is the GRU

and oligarchs that
help set this up,

they're all still operating
there largely with impunity.

And they really
have never stopped.

Sometimes they’ve
moved their operations,

or at least it appeared so,
outside of Russia,

and they set up
in third countries.

But this is a,

this is a low cost
way that they don’t

feel much pain from
the United States

or the international community

as to why to stop.
So they don't.

So that's why they're
back in Saint Petersburg

and they just keep
changing their names.

There's been some
some great journalistic

work that's come out recently.

According to a New York Times
article just came out recently,

you know, the Russians spent
about 300 million since 2014.

Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find

the 30,000 emails
that are missing.

I think you will probably be
rewarded mightily by our press.

Wikileaks.
Wikileaks. Wikileaks.

It just came out on Wikileaks.

What we know

is that the Russian
intelligence service,

and again, documented
through indictments

through both the Senate
Intelligence Committee reporting

and the special
counsel reporting, and

indictments,
the Russian intelligence

service went about getting
their hands on emails

out of servers at the Democratic
National Committee headquarters,

emails between Hillary Clinton
and other campaign officials.

And then those very emails in
the possession of the Russian

intelligence service ended up

in the hands of an
organization called Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was an organization

that, connected to
Julian Assange,

who started out as sort of
an information clearinghouse

is how they styled themselves,

where people who
are whistleblowers

or information that had been,
you know, obtained, stolen,

you know, turned over
by a whistleblower

that, you know,
allegedly to point

the public eye at alleged
malfeasance or bad acts

by various governments,
that they would

serve as a
clearinghouse for that.

But having said that,
they ended up publishing

a great deal of information that
was stolen by Russian actors.

The question of
how stolen emails,

hacked emails and communications

ended up going from the
Russian intelligence service

to Wikileaks

and then ultimately distributed
by Wikileaks, in perfect

timing to aid Donald
Trump at key times,

is a fascinating story
and fascinating question.

But we know that someone
by the name of Roger Stone,

very close advisor,
associate of the president,

appeared to have knowledge,
claimed himself

to have knowledge of
what Wikileaks was doing.

Even Donald Trump Jr
appeared to have contact

with and knowledge of
what Wikileaks was doing.

We even have a report -

this is coming from the
Mueller investigation - that

an associate of Donald Trump
is riding with Donald Trump.

Rick, this is Rick Gates,
they're riding in a limo

to LaGuardia Airport.

Donald Trump takes a phone call

and Gates can hear that

end of the call.

Trump hangs up,

and Trump says
something like this to Gates:

there's going to
be another release.

You know, there's going to
be another Wikileaks release.

Now, it's believed
that the person on the

other end of that
phone was Roger Stone,

conveying to Donald Trump

that Wikileaks was
about to release

another tranche of
stolen communications

- stolen by the Russian
intelligence service,

acquired by Wikileaks -

and that this was going
to aid the campaign.

And the absurd thing is Trump at
some point in time said, well,

I have no idea what
Wikileaks is, which is,

you know, again, you go
back and you look at the tapes

of his campaign events
again and again and again,

he was talking about how
magnificent Wikileaks is,

and they're wonderful,
and the truth is coming out.

Do you still love Wikileaks?

I know nothing about Wikileaks.

It's not my thing.

Various news organizations noted
how absurd Trump's claim was.

Wikileaks! Wikileaks!
I love Wikileaks!

These Wikileaks.

It's been amazing what's
coming out on Wikileaks.

The wonder of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks has done a job on her,
hasn't it?

We love Wikileaks.

Boy, they have really...
Wikileaks.

Wikileaks. Wikileaks.

The Wikileaks
revelations. Wikileaks.

Wikileaks. Right?
Wikileaks.

This Wikileaks is
like a treasure trove.

And so it's clear,
one, that he was well

aware of Wikileaks,
that he was pushing it.

And again, not just pushing

Wikileaks,
he is pushing information

about his opponent that had been

stolen by a hostile
foreign nation.

And then it had been
provided ultimately

to Wikileaks,
who was publishing it.

So he essentially is not only
pointing to the stolen material,

but encouraging this
action by a hostile state actor

to help himself get elected.

Do you still love Wikileaks?

I know nothing about Wikileaks.

It's not my thing.

It's not my deal in life.

Alright, so after our
long national nightmare,

my handpicked attorney
general says I'm in the clear.

That's right.

No collusion. None. Zippo.

Zilch. Nada.

Barr says it's right there
in the Mueller report.

Couple of years,
thousands of pages.

Guy reads it over the
weekend. Gotta love him.

No collusion.

If by collusion,
you mean me writing

code for Russian
government hackers.

Didn't happen. Just ask Mueller.

This is all been one big witch
hunt that has turned up nothing.

Except my campaign chair,

personal lawyer,
deputy campaign chair,

national security adviser,

foreign policy advisor,
strategists

and a couple dozen Russians.

But other than that, nothing!

Now I can get back
to work and shoot

someone in the
middle of Fifth Avenue.

Robert Mueller found
multiple instances

of collusion, but he didn't find

that they rose to the definition
of a criminal conspiracy.

And this distinction
is very important.

Collusion doesn't
have a legal meaning

outside of very specific
arenas like antitrust law.

But what we think of
when we think of collusion

is secret contacts.

An agreement to engage
in sort of a covert behavior

to a mutually desired outcome.

Criminal conspiracy
is a much higher bar.

It requires an
explicit agreement,

which you normally wouldn't

find in an
intelligence operation

to commit an underlying crime.

And on this front,
it became very difficult,

given both the nature of the
contacts that were happening and

also the fact that
there was obstruction

involved in this investigation,

for Mueller to really reach that

high threshold for a
criminal indictment.

When you are looking at
counterintelligence operations,

not everything that a foreign

adversary is doing
might be a crime.

But that doesn't mean that it's

not dangerous to
national security.

And so, yes,
the level of contacts,

information sharing
and coordination between

Russia and members
of the Trump campaign

were dangerous to
our national security.

But by looking at
it only through this

criminal lens,
we essentially created

an out for people
to claim that this was

not actually dangerous behavior.

With a so-called
four page summary,

he held a press conference so
that he could shape the report.

And if you really pick
apart every word and line

in that four page summary
and in that press conference,

you've got an attorney
general who is deceiving

the United States
about a special

counsel investigation
and the results.

So, for example,
he claimed in that summary that

there was no collusion
found with Russia.

Well,
that's simply not the case.

The truth is that
Bob Mueller did not

find something called
criminal conspiracy, right?

The ability
to say this candidate

knew precisely
that he was dealing

with the Russian
government and broke

a violation and violated US laws

in a large conspiracy
involving others.

True,
criminal conspiracy not found,

but collusion with
Russia was rampant.

And there's a hundred
or more contacts

that were found
between his campaign

staff and Russian officials,

or people representing
Russian interests.

A hundred or more contacts.

That is collusion,

even though it may not
be criminal conspiracy.

I think the most
important takeaway from

everything that
happened with Mueller

is the broad scope of activity,

illegal activity that
occurred on the one

hand by the government
of Russia and

agents of the
government of Russia.

You know, indictments against
the Internet Research Agency

and several of the
players in and around that.

But then also, when you look at
the people in and around Trump's

circle, both as a candidate
and then later as the president.

There were guilty
pleas and convictions

of his national
security adviser,

his campaign manager,
his deputy campaign manager,

his informal fixer,
his personal attorney and the

list just goes, you know,
a foreign policy advisor.

The list goes on and on and on.

And these weren't allegations.

These were people
who broke the law.

Charges were brought and
were found or pled guilty.

So there's no question,
there's no ambiguity.

These people got
up and said yes.

At some point in time,
they were either

convicted or pled
guilty to saying yes,

I violated the
law. And all these

things in some way,
shape or form

had elements
involving connections

to the government of Russia.

You know,
certainly there are the

actions of one,
you know, an attorney

in the FBI who had changed
an email in the course of,

you know,
pursuing one particular

FISA with regard to Carter Page.

But again,
Carter Page was a tiny

little sliver of all of this.

All these broad looks
conclusively determined,

even by partisan actors,
trying to find information,

came up with no evidence
that there was something that

was improper in the context
of any of these investigations.

Bill Barr is a liar,
and I don't say that lightly.

I grew up as a lawyer.
Now I'm in media.

You don't lightly
call someone a liar.

Maybe you say it nicer. You
say he misstated the truth.

But when I went
through Bill Barr's record,

there were so many
instances of him

not just sort of
fudging the truth.

Yes, there were plenty of those.

Or coming up with
implausible explanations,

but just outright
lying to Congress,

to the media,
to the American public.

And I couldn't ignore it.

And so I felt like, this was
one of those extreme situations

where it was merited
to call somebody a liar.

Barr announced that
there was no collusion

and that Mueller
had found the same.

But Mueller says in the report

collusion isn't a term
I'm concerned with.

It's not a legal term.
It's not a criminal term.

So the same way Mueller
found there was no collusion,

the same way Mueller found
there was no flying elephants.

I mean,
it didn't matter either way.

And so Bill Barr,
not only did he

dishonestly characterize
Mueller's report,

he strategically and
deviously manipulated

the timing of the
release of the report.

I'll tell you a few things
that we would have known

if Barr had released
Mueller's summaries.

First of all,
we would have known that

the Russians committed crimes
to interfere with the election.

That they did it in order
to help Donald Trump win.

That Donald Trump's team
knew about these efforts,

and that Donald
Trump's team expected

to benefit from those efforts.

So people can argue all day
about was there collusion?

Was there not collusion?

People disagree.

But those facts
are indisputable.

The Russians committed crimes.

They did it because
they wanted Trump to win.

The Trump campaign
knew about it and

the Trump campaign
expected to benefit.

And I would add

the Trump campaign

engaged in dozens of efforts to

establish contact
with the Russians.

So Bill Barr, in his four pager,

not only did he characterize

Mueller's report,
but he also threw

in a conclusion of his own,
which was

there was no
obstruction of justice.

I think Bill Barr was
wildly incorrect in this.

A thousand plus former federal
prosecutors, including me,

signed a letter saying
this should be obstruction.

The evidence here is more
than sufficient for obstruction.

Barr just sort of waved it away.

Barr said, well,
for one thing,

it's unusual to have obstruction

unless you have
some underlying crime.

That's just nonsense.

I mean, by Barr's reasoning,
if you were really,

really good at
obstructing justice, you

could never get
charged with anything

because you can never
charge the underlying crime.

So why wasn't Trump
charged with any crimes?

The problem for
Mueller is that there

is an internal Office
of Legal Counsel

memorandum in the Department
of Justice, which makes it

a Department of Justice policy

not to indict a
sitting president.

He felt that to make such
an accusation in his report,

if it wasn't going
to be followed up

with an actual
indictment and a trial,

would deprive Trump of the
opportunity to clear his name.

In other words,
it would be unfair to him.

It would create a cloud of
suspicion and stigma over him.

He left his findings
inconclusive, but noted that

Trump could be charged
once he left office.

One of the ironies
of the Mueller report

is that volume one

isn't able to find
enough evidence

sufficient to be able to
charge a criminal conspiracy.

However, that's partly because
of what we find in volume two,

which is the efforts to
obstruct the investigation.

And so both of these
parts of the report

form one big picture of both

the coordinated efforts between
the Trump campaign and Russia

and their efforts
to undermine the

investigation into
that interference.

(tense music)

One of Donald Trump's

big talking points
towards the latter

phases of the Mueller
report and after

Mueller was done,
was investigate the

investigators. It's
revenge time now.

And that's where John
Durham became special counsel.

Bill Barr tapped John
Durham to do just that.

And by the way, John Durham's

investigation has
now taken way longer

than Mueller's investigation
and yielded far, far less.

And so this was Barr

engaging and facilitating Donald
Trump's revenge fantasies.

And, frankly, Bill Barr's
own revenge fantasies,

because Bill Barr has said

he was always from before he

became attorney general,
skeptical

of and more of Bob
Mueller's investigation.

But he has since, Bill
Barr calls it Russiagate

and the Russia hoax, and
he is very aggressive about it.

Well, appointing John Durham
to investigate the investigators

was the ultimate
act of retribution

and of political revenge.

Of course,
it's completely backfired

because John Durham has been

a massive dud and a
massive embarrassment.

You already had three
separate reports concluding that

Bob Mueller's
investigation was not

just appropriate, but necessary.

You had the Inspector
General of DOJ.

You had Mueller himself, and
you had a Republican-led Senate

committee,
all of which said not just

it was appropriate
for Robert Mueller

to investigate Russian

interference,
but it was necessary.

It would have been
malpractice not to.

Robert Mueller did not
run a perfect investigation.

To be sure, there were
faults in the investigation.

The Inspector
General found this.

I mean, you had texts,
internal texts, most infamously,

I think, from FBI agent
Peter Strzok showing he

absolutely had bias,
political and

personal bias
against Donald Trump.

That's a problem
that's worth addressing.

And we shouldn't
ever breeze by that.

That does not mean, however,
that nothing happened.

That does not mean there was no
attempt to connect with Russia.

There were plenty of those.

That does not mean
Russia didn't try to interfere.

They absolutely did.

So both of those things
can be true at the same time.

And then for Bill Barr in

particular,
to come along and appoint

somebody like
John Durham looking

into something, you know, one,

there was this very
early statement that

John Durham publicly
made after DOJ’s

Inspector General
releases his report

where Durham,
said, well, I disagree

with some of his
conclusions about

the opening of
the investigation.

Well, I was there.
I opened the case.

I know what happened.

And what the IG said is
exactly the way that occurred.

So I'm not sure what
it is that caused this

sitting U.S. attorney to make
this extraordinary

public statement of disagreement

with what I know
to be the truth.

People who want
to find fault with

the Russia
investigation are finding

little nooks and crannies

into some of the things that
Durham has filed gratuitously.

But no, John Durham's
work, by and large

has cast no meaningful doubt

on the necessity of
the Russia investigation.

(tense music)

Strzok's testimony
before Congress

showed that partisan attacks

are now commonplace with regard
to the Russia investigation.

And you have come in
here and said, I have no bias,

and you do it
with a straight face.

And I watched you in the
private testimony you gave.

And I told some of the
other guys, he is really good.

He's lying.

He knows we know he's lying.

And he can probably
pass a polygraph.

It's amazing--
- Mr. Chairman.

- This is my time...
- Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry.
Point of order.

Point of order.

The gentleman will
state his point of order.

A member of this committee

just asserted that this
witness who was under oath

and a former agent
of the FBI lied.

There is no evidence of that
and I ask him to withdraw it.

I do not withdraw it.

He is not a member of Congress.

It's not a violation
of the rule.

And just as you have been

expressing bias
through your members

about what a
hero he is...

There is not a single person
on this committee

who has ever characterized...

The gentleman
from Rhode Island...

The gentleman from Rhode Island

will suspend.

No, the disgrace is

what this man has
done.

The gentleman from Texas will
suspend for a moment.

There is the disgrace,
and it won't be recaptured

any time soon
because of the damage

you've done to
the justice system.

And I've talked to FBI
agents around the country.

You've embarrassed them.

You've been
embarrassed yourself.

And I can't help but
wonder when I see

you looking there
with a little smirk,

how many times did
you look so innocent

into your wife's eyes and
lie to her about Lisa Page?

Mr. Chairman, this is
outrageous!

(indistinct shouting)

Mr. Chairman, please?

(indistinct shouting)

This is intolerable,
harassment of the witness!

You need your medication!

Strzok defended the FBI,
saying partisan

attacks were hurting the agency.

Everybody's watching this
and making up their own mind.

And what I would tell you

is one,

I'm sitting here
telling you the truth.

And two, independent of me,

I cannot express to you
my love of the FBI enough.

The men and women who make
up that workforce, their ethics,

their integrity are unmatched
anywhere in the world.

And I think that's important,
one, because it is who we are.

Two, that none of them

would accept any
of the behaviors

that are being
alleged any more than

I would accept it in him.

And three,

this entire exercise
comes at a cost.

We are doing things that are

going to, in the future,
tear down

the underpinnings
of what represent

law and order in this country.

So did the Russians
tip the 2016 election?

That's the focus of Cyberwar by

Professor Kathleen
Hall Jamieson.

We begin with a key question:
did Russia turn

the outcome of the
last presidential race?

I believe it's highly
probable that they did.

Not certain,
but highly probable.

Three ways to get
there: troll influence -

those were the
imposters in cyberspace,

influence of hacking on media
agenda, including hacked content

used as a basis of questions
that hurt Clinton in...

..two debates, and a possible

influence of Russian
disinformation

on James Comey's
decision on October

28th to basically
let the public know

that he had reopened the server

investigation. It changed
the media agenda

and she dropped
in the polls 2.5%.

That could have been a decisive
influence all by itself.

Nicely done.

When I get asked,
do I think the Russians

succeeded in
actually influencing

to the point where
Americans voted a

certain way based
on that influence?

I tell you first,
honestly, I don't know.

But my conclusion,
if forced to come to

one, would be I think so,
I think it worked.

Perhaps the most
tangible likelihood

that that was
successful would be

with the breach into DNC emails

and communications
involving Hillary Clinton

and her
staff and associates.

He repeated the Wikileaks theme.

He repeated the mantra of
look at what Hillary is saying.

Look at what her staff
is saying about her.

That's stolen material,

Trump used it,

and it's clear

it came from the Russian
intelligence services.

Paul Manafort's contacts and
coordination

with Konstantin Kilimnik

is exactly what we
mean when we say collusion.

This is a clandestine,

coordinated attempt
to achieve an outcome,

in this case helping Russia
interfere in the 2016 election.

What's key about the
polling data that Manafort

provided to Konstantin Kilimnik
is that the Russians needed this

on the ground intelligence in
order to know where to focus

their disinformation and
influence operation efforts.

By gathering
intelligence on where

small changes in voting behavior

or turnout can make a big

difference in the
electoral outcome,

Russia was able to target
its operations very effectively,

and Manafort
helped them with that.

(tense music)

When you look at the
number of voters

if you tally up the sum total

between Pennsylvania,
Michigan and I think Wisconsin,

the number of voters that you
would have to change their mind

to cause the election to go
to Clinton instead of Trump?

You could fit them
all in Michigan Stadium,

you know, in Ann Arbor.

It's a very small number.

So I agree with
people when they say,

look, you know,
if you look at malign

Russian activity, it's not going
to move the needle 4, 5 or 6%.

And that's true. But
that's not the point.

The point is you need to move
the needle a tiny percent of 1%.

You don't need a big shift.

So when it comes
to what the Russians did

even if it moved the needle
0.1, 0.2%... that's enough.

And so consequently,
had they not done that,

might the campaign, might the
election have gone differently?

Sure. And I think it would have.

Now, you can extend that
reasoning to... had Director

Comey not made the
announcement to reopen

the investigation,
might it have changed it?

Yes. In a campaign that close,
there are any number of factors

that could be determinative.

But, one of them was absolutely
the government of Russia.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

I have not read the book.

So I need to put that out there.

I wouldn't disagree,

but I don't know if
we have the data

to kind of back
that up empirically.

So as a hypothesis,
I don't disagree with it.

But from an empirical side,

I'd have to review
the data to kind

of get a better measure on that.

So in September

of 2020, I filed a much more
comprehensive complaint.

But the core of it

was that the
suppression of intelligence

as related to 2020 elections

for political purposes
to support Donald Trump

and let Joe Biden be,
you know, denigrated, right?

In July of 2020,

my office wrote a
report basically outlining

specific information that
we were going to send

to our stakeholders
at an unclassified level,

that the Russians were going to

denigrate Joe Biden
and try to pump up

President Trump. Specifically,
I got an

email from the chief
of staff saying

Chad Wolf knows
you're about to put

this out,
but he'd like to see you.

So I knew what it
was going to be about.

So, of course, I went and saw
him and he asked me to hold

the information, and I
said I'm not going to do that.

And he's like,
I'm ordering you to hold it.

And I told him I wouldn't do it.

He wanted the information held

because it was going
to make President

Trump look bad.

The public demands
that you hold these

offices and do what's
right for the country

and not for yourself.

So, I mean, I find that
argument to be disgusting.

In 2024, if Trump runs for it,
well, I won't vote for him,

and I don't think
he's fit for office.

I think he will damage this
country in ways that are worse

than what he's done so far.

I think that while
the Russians have

done their job of
enhancing polarization

and discord in the
United States, they

pale in comparison
to Trump by himself.

And so I think really
where he showed

his true colors to the American

people was after he lost.

(tense music)

In November of 2020,

as we lead into January 6th,

just a very dangerous
predicament

he's put the country in.
The lies that he has told

and for things that I believe he

probably thinks aren't
true anyways, right?

And the polarization
that he's caused.

I think we are in a worse place.

And, you know, I think
he's the direct cause of that.

The Russians are
certainly trying to influence

the US 2024 elections. In
the company I work in now

called Logically, you know,
we're looking at this happen in

real time on social
media. We are

a social media analysis company,

so we see people and signs of
what we think are the Russians.

There's no doubt in my mind
that they're still involved.

So I ended up becoming
the highest-ranking

whistleblower in U.S. history.

It's not a kind of thing,
a title

I thought I would ever have.

And anyone that knows me
would never have envisioned

that would be the
place that I would be in.

But I am proud of it.

Because when I think

when I was called to
do the right thing, I did.

(brooding music)

I'm not into golden showers!

You know the great thing,
our great first lady,

"That one," she said.
"I don't believe that one."

He's not into golden showers,
as they say they call them.

I don't like that idea.

Former FBI Director Comey's

remarks on ABC
fueled speculation

that the salacious
rumor might be true.

And I started to tell him
about the allegation was that

he had been involved
with prostitutes in a hotel

in Moscow in 2013,
during a visit

for the Miss Universe pageant,

and that the Russians
had filmed the episode.

I honestly never thought these

words would come
out of my mouth,

but I don't know
whether the current

president of the United States

was with prostitutes peeing on
each other in Moscow in 2013.

It's possible, but I don't know.

Years after his dossier,
Christopher Steele added

to the intrigue that a
videotape might exist.

And today, do you still
believe that that tape exists?

I think it probably does, but I

wouldn't put 100%
certainty on it.

A report in the British
newspaper The Guardian,

further added to the intrigue.

(brooding music)

And just in case you
missed seeing me, here I am.

A golden shower,
(laughs)

or sometimes
referred to as water sports,

is when somebody
likes to urinate

on someone or be urinated on.

Basically, it's a pee party.

So I think for some
the kink is domination,

you know,
and or marking territory.

I don't really know.

I like I said,
I'm not into it, but

those are the
things I've been told.

You know, the humiliation of it,
you know, pee on me or worse.

You know, we all know
about, you know,

the alternative to that is.

But I think it's the
act of humiliation.

People who like to be
spanked or put leashes on or,

you know, it's a very
submissive thing to be peed on.

I mean, I get asked a lot what,

what I think about
the allegation of

Trump and the golden
shower tape from 2013.

There's different
versions of it.

I always assumed that he had

been peed on or
peed on somebody,

but I guess the actual
story is that he only watched

two Russian
prostitutes urinate on a

bed that the Obamas
allegedly slept in.

But the way...

is that that bad?

I don't, I don't know,
but I mean,

I think a lot of people assume

that he got peed on
because he's kind of a bitch.

I'm Katie Morgan,
and I am an adult movie star.

I've been doing adult
movies for 20 years now,

and I absolutely
love all the orgasms.

Of course, I'm familiar
with golden showers.

It's one of those things.

Everybody's got their kink.

Golden showers
are when you find it

sexually exciting
to pee on someone

or to get peed on
by someone.

Or, I guess, really,
any way that you involve

urine in your sex play for

gratification counts
as golden showers.

It's actually been
around since the early 40s

in the slang dictionary.
So it's a pretty old idea.

Apparently people really
like to pee on each other.

I've heard it
called water sports.

I've heard it
called golden rain.

I've heard it called a
few different things,

but in general,
if you say golden

anything, people know it's pee.

So the allegation with Trump was

that in 2013,
at a hotel in Moscow,

he watched
prostitutes pee on the

same bed that the
Obamas slept in.

It's so weird. And, it's funny,

I always thought he was either
peed on or he peed on someone.

I never knew the details
until I did the research.

The rumor is that there's actual

video evidence
that this happened,

so... I have not seen the video,
but I'd watch it.

Truth or not?
I don't know.

I don't know,
he just... even if you

just watched, I would admit it.

Who cares?

I mean, it's not like
he was involved.

He just watched. Maybe.

Yeah,

you know,
I used to think that story about

the golden shower
tape couldn't possibly

be true because it
seemed so far- fetched.

But nowadays,
is it really that far-fetched?

Anything is possible when it
comes to the orange hobgoblin.

Unless some of you
have been under a rock,

that in 2006, I met Donald Trump

at a golf tournament,
a celebrity

golf tournament in Lake Tahoe.

And he invited me
to dinner and I agreed

and went to his
hotel to meet him

for what I was told was dinner.

And that ended up turning
into a three hour conversation,

which did not include any
conversation about sex or

escorting or money for sex,
or any of those things.

And I went to the
ladies room or the

bathroom in his
room and came out

to find him perched in
his underwear on the bed.

And I was too afraid to say no.

I tried to walk past him, and
he got between me and the door.

I knew his security guard was

outside, and basically
we had talked

for several hours about
how I wanted to be a director

in mainstream and,

you know,
all of that stuff, and he

kind of used some
of that against me.

And I was cornered.

And I... honestly, I just froze.

You know,
he didn't physically force me.

He didn't threaten
me with violence.

I definitely could outrun him.

But I just froze.

And... we had sex.

I mean, I guess I should
have seen it coming,

because when I arrived
at the room,

he apologized
for being late.

He had had a phone call,
and he opened the door

in his black silk pajamas.

And I laughed at him,
thinking to myself,

this motherfucker's
trying to be Hugh Hefner.

And I told him to go put
some fucking clothes on.

I also then famously
spanked him with a magazine

because during our conversation,

he was bragging about
all of his accolades

and achievements.

And, you know, he was peacocking

and didn't let me
get a word in and

didn't ask me
anything about myself.

And after, you know,
a very long time of this,

he produced a
magazine that he was very

proud of, that he was
on the cover of.

And I think he even was like,
it's not

even out yet,
but I have an advance copy.

And I... at that
point I was hungry,

I had been lied to.

I get very hangry

and I was tired
of listening to this

buffoon just talk about himself.

So I just quipped at him,

somebody should spank
you with that magazine.

I just snatched it from him,

rolled it up and told him
to turn around.

I smacked him on the ass.

I think somebody
should spank him with

a rolled-up newspaper
or magazine daily.

God, he's dumb.

Obviously, he's into them.

They certainly seem
to be on his mind.

I mean, he certainly seems to be

into golden showers
if he's randomly

talking about them
in business meetings.

God, he's so stupid. And I
think that's one of the tells

that the golden shower
tape might exist -

he can't
stop talking about it.

When other people
do stop talking

about it, he brings it up again.

He is so dumb.

What was sex with Trump like?

Hands down, the worst and most

regrettable 90
seconds of my life.

I didn't even get to pee on him.

(brooding music)

Trump's former attorney,

Michael Cohen,
wrote that rumors of

a videotape had
circulated for years

and, quote, knowing the boss,
anything was possible.

Cohen also wrote that Trump

visited a raunchy
nightclub in Las Vegas

with a Russian oligarch,
a nightclub

that featured a simulated
golden showers routine.

Some suspect

that Trump's appearance
at the nightclub

might have sparked
the salacious rumor.

So what was the club's
name and what was it like?

(upfront dance music)

The Vegas nightclub was closed

shortly after Trump visited it,

one month after
a judge ordered it

to clean up its
risque sex shows.

In his book, Cohen says his
heart sank when a friend said

he heard rumors in
2016 about a pee tape.

His friend denies
Cohen's allegations.

For him to say that
we discussed pee tapes

is, in my opinion, disgusting...

...when you're talking about

someone that
calls you a brother.

I know that he's
selling every book

he can sell,
and I'm fine with that.

Except you can't just

go on a spree of
talking about your friend,

you know,
and lying about some of

the things that you were saying.

He took action. He did this,
did that.

So when I got a phone call
from a friend of mine in Moscow

and he said, listen, you know,
I was sitting at dinner and,

I overheard somebody saying
about some tapes about

Mr. Trump, and so forth.

And he told me that
he wasn't concerned.

Not in a dramatic way.

He just said, listen,
I know you're in business

with the Trump Organization,
but this is what's going on.

And like I said, a lot of
conversations were about tapes.

Access Hollywood,
famous Access Hollywood tape,

and pretty much
everybody was saying, oh,

there should be other tapes,
you know.

And it could be anywhere else,

not only in the U.S.

Hello! How are you?

So, just the general concern
about this type of rumor

or gossip was not
taken too lightly by me.

So, I,

after that call, soon after,

I texted Michael and I said,
listen,

you know,someone is
bragging about some tapes.

I don't think it's a big deal.

But so you know,

this is what's going on. And
the only thing that I misused,

I'd say, or I said it in a wrong
way, was stop flow of tapes.

Basically, what I meant, it was

evening time,
you know, we have kids

and a lot going on.

A lot of times we
speak into the phone.

I can't remember if

I was speaking into the phone
or was dialing into the phone.

It was a long time ago,
so I said stop flow,

there are no tapes.

There is no flow of
tapes from Russia.

Don't worry about that.

It's not a big deal.

But you should know
that's what's going on.

There are rumors. And er...
Michael was not clear.

Tapes of what?

And it was a friendly
back and forth,

not even a phone conversation.
The text message ended there.

We never continued the
conversation about that.

But for Michael to go on
a limb and make that up,

that we had phone conversations,
that we discussed these tapes,

and he sent me on a hunt,

because he knew that I had
business connections in Russia,

all this, all of that is
entirely untrue.

It's false.

I was a good friend to Michael.

I was an important...

link between the Trump
Organization and Georgia

and the expansion of the Trump
brand in that part of the world.

So he should have been truthful.
Kompromat.

So, it's a Russian word,
compromising materials.

It was really,
the whole idea started

during Stalin,
you know, collecting

compromising
materials on people,

pretty much on anybody,
just in case

that person succeeds
in something.

I think kompromat is everywhere,

but especially in
our culture today,

we see a lot of kompromat.

Well, they knocked
on the door.

There were two FBI agents.

They were part of
the Mueller team.

I invited them
in as politely as I

could, and we sat
down and we had a chat

and chat became a long,

about 2.5 hour,
three hour conversation.

Which also turned
into more of an

interrogation,
and it turned into

more of a very clear
picture that this was not over.

It was just the
beginning of our ordeal.

I was a gracious host.

Georgia is known, my
native country is known to be,

first we are hosts and
we welcome everyone.

And that's basically
how I behaved.

And suddenly,

the head prosecutor is
throwing you under the bus,

saying you're Russian.

We had an almost
eight hour conversation

about Georgia and
how Georgia was great

and how I was
born in Georgia and

how important America
was for me. All that.

And suddenly, she completely
disregarded all of that

and she's telling
everybody that

this guy and his family
come from Moscow.

At that moment,

I said, I'm going to
have to speak up.

And the fact is I'm not Russian.

Now, the agenda was to show that

there was some
type of collusion.

I get it. They were doing their
job, you know,

they were looking into

every single detail
to protect our nation,

to protect the
integrity of the...

the presidential institute
and all this and the election.

But... I had nothing
to do with it.

I'm not naive.

I'm not saying,

oh, there was a
big agenda to take

Trump down and do all of that.

And... if there is a rumor
about the sitting president

of the United States, you
better look into it, for sure.

Everybody should.

And I was totally fine with
them asking me these questions.

Why did you send the text
message and what was going on.

But I told them the truth, and I

thought I did my
job as a citizen

who is trying to help you to
understand

a much bigger picture.

After the Mueller
report referred

to him as a Russian businessman

and insinuated
that he knew about

the content of the tapes,

Giorgi demanded a retraction.

His request was denied,

which prompted him to file a
lawsuit against Robert Mueller.

I lost money,
I lost my reputation.

The only thing
I'm trying to get out

of this and everyone's
lesson should be

you should never, ever quit.

If your name

and identity,
heritage and nationality

is damaged,

you should try everything
you can to get it back.

Well, I joined the KGB after

I graduated from high school.

Actually, I was accepted because
of my father's background.

He was a KGB officer.

Although my father, by the way,
was against me joining the KGB.

And I said, why? Said
that's dirty work, my son.

I said, but you spent
20 years there.

That's why I tell
you it's dirty work.

Well, my main job was
to recruit Americans.

I mean, people with knowledge
or access to, well, secrets,

I mean,

all sorts of information
not available in the media.

So that's typical spy work,

and that's what I was
actually trained to do.

Putin was a nobody,
I mean in Saint Petersburg,

just a guy who would
knock on my door.

I had a secretary,
the secretary would say,

some guy came,
I let him come in.

May I have some pictures,

I mean, documents signed? Oh,
of course.

So that's that.

That's all I knew about him.

He had no position.

I mean,
no leadership or anything.

And so Putin was
pulled out from nowhere

and became an assistant to
the mayor of Saint Petersburg.

Well, Putin proved to be,
in that

sense, well, an efficient guy.

I mean, and,

so he did come to
Moscow and slowly,

gradually grew to
become the member,

I mean,
actually the chief of the

Russian internal
Security - the KGB.

So when Putin
called me a traitor,

I called him a war criminal.

And I said the war
in Chechnya one day

will reveal the ugly nature

of the guy who is
running Russia today.

Putin will go down
in Russian history

as an ambitious, cruel,
I mean, inhuman,

I mean,
performer of his own ambitions

and his own, you know, desires.

Well, in my view,
he's just a killer.

Putin has been trying to

intervene into practically

every major country's
internal affairs.

This is part of the legacy
of the Soviet mentality.

And Putin,
in many ways, remains

loyal to the Soviet,
you know, mentality.

There are some similarities
between Trump and Putin,

I believe,
in the human and political way.

Putin's, as I know him,

you know, really

(his) main goal today
is to stay in power

as long as he can. And
he will do anything to,

you know, remove any obstacles

or will commit any crime,
really,

just to stay in power in Russia.

He knows how to take advantage
of these things because he,

in his position as
a former KGB guy,

he was very much involved in the

sorts of things which
would put people

in difficult positions
where kompromat

was an inevitable
part of their lives.

Well, to place a naked
lady into his room,

you expected that
for the guy,

but that pictures would be
taken, you know?

In that sense the
KGB in the...

post-Soviet days have not

changed much.
In the Soviet days,

they would use more direct
ways to get rid of people just,

you know, either in
jail or just execution.

In Putin's Russia,

it's more to get people hooked,

and with some information
related to their either

financial indiscretions or
human, I mean, sexual...

that's more typical of
the current Russian regime.

Well, I could not
tell you anything

about now since I've been
out of Russia for many years.

But there were several hotels,
public places,

which were
controlled by the KGB.

And if necessary,
the special operations

would be provided by the
KGB inside these hotels,

where they would control the
personal behavior and everything

of the people who
they were interested in,

you know. And that
has not changed much.

You should not forget
Putin is a former KGB guy

and his mentality in
many ways remains the same.

Trump's reputation in the
circles which I am familiar

with inside the U.S.
you know, is not a good one.

The fact that Trump
was interested in the

Russian, well,
female community, let's put it

this way, is a known fact and

it's known to the
U.S government.

I know the U.S
government was informed

about it by the
Russian authorities.

I would say that

Mr. Putin is rather discreet
because if he starts

sharing this information widely
he may be in trouble himself.

Because there is also
information about

President Putin as well.
(laughs)

(dramatic music)

Through my experience leading

counterintelligence
investigations

for the FBI working
against the Russian

intelligence services,
I can tell you

that it would shock me to learn

that there is no file

on Donald Trump in Moscow

and at Russian intelligence
service headquarters.

In fact,
that would be a complete

anomaly from how
they conduct themselves

when they spot,
assess and ultimately

target American businessmen,

American candidates
for office at all levels.

So I've never been
in the rumor business,

but we certainly are aware,
right, that

as a public that there's this

accusation, allegation out
there that somehow Trump

may have been compromised
with prostitutes in a hotel room

at the Ritz-Carlton,
Moscow, in or

around the Miss
Universe pageant.

The Ritz-Carlton, Moscow,

and other westernized hotels

in Russia,
are highly compromised by

the Russian
intelligence services.

You are under audio
and video surveillance

much of the time in such hotels.

And if such a thing happened
or something like that happened,

it would almost definitely
have been recorded.

Trump's reaction
to the allegation

only added to the curiosity

of former FBI Chief Comey
and former Agent Stzrok.

He says he may
want me to investigate it

to prove that
it didn't happen.

And then he says, something that

distracted me because he said,
you know,

if there's even a
1% chance my wife

thinks that's true,
that's terrible.

And I, and I remember thinking,
how could

your wife think there's
a 1% chance you were

with prostitutes peeing
on each other in Moscow?

I'm a flawed human being, but

there’s literally
zero chance that

my wife would
think that was true.

So what kind of marriage

to what kind of man
does your wife think

there's only a 99%
chance you didn't do that?

His response was
there were no prostitutes,

there were never
any prostitutes.

If you didn't,
if that information,

if that activity
had not occurred,

a logical person,

your response
is... if I accuse you,

if I accuse anybody of something
that's absolutely wrong,

people tend to
get angry and they

flat out deny it.
Never happened.

That's wrong.
Absolutely not.

But to sort of hedge and say,

there were no prostitutes,
is a very,

is a very unusual response.

And it is a response

that leads me to
question whether,

in fact, that event did occur.

I kind of believe in
the pee pee tapes.

And I'll tell you why. I
believe in the pee pee tape

because it's so in character,
and it's the kind of thing

that you wouldn't even think to
make up, you know what I mean?

Like, if I was going
to make something up

like, oh, whatever,
he was with women and,

you know, they've been using
that kompromat for years, right?

They get you in a hotel
and they photograph you

with a... having sex
with someone, like that's

their standard
operating procedure.

But what Trump wanted the

prostitutes to do
was pee on the bed

because Obama had been there

and he just hated Obama so much
he just wanted to piss on Obama?

Only a malignant
narcissist would be that sick.

I mean,
just have sex with the women.

But you know,
that would be normal.

So for him, it's more

sexually exciting

to pee on Obama's bed,
right, than

to have sex with
a beautiful woman.

That's... a perversion.

And that's exactly the
way in which he is perverse.

And so it became apparent to me

very early on that
this was someone

who was extremely
dangerous.

Not just someone who
had a mental illness,

but someone who literally had

the most dangerous
mental illness

a person can have.

And still be capable

of actually carrying out
the office of president.

Malignant narcissism
is actually not

a diagnosis you'll
find in the DSM.

It was actually introduced
by the famed analyst

Erich Fromm, who himself
escaped the Nazis in the 40s.

And he invented the diagnosis
or came up with the diagnosis

to explain the
psychology of Hitler and

other malignant
narcissistic leaders,

other grandiose,
murderous leaders who

have been with us
throughout history.

So Hitler was not a one-off.

He was maybe the worst or most

extreme example,
but he's a type,

and that's what
Fromm was saying.

And the type basically has four
components: one, narcissism.

Obviously, we all know
Trump's a narcissist,

but the other three components

are equally
important: paranoia.

So his constant feeling
that he is being persecuted,

he is constantly
feeling aggrieved.

His projection onto
other people that they are,

whether they're
minorities or his

opponents, that they are evil.

And therefore deserving
of terrible punishment.

All of that is part
of his paranoia.

And, of course,
his crazy conspiracy

theories are also
part of his paranoia.

And the third component is
antisocial personality disorder,

or what used to be
called psychopathy.

Meaning that he
has no moral center.

He's a constant liar.

He violates the rights
of others, exploits others,

has no sense of
guilt or anxiety

about the bad
things that he does.

So that's the criminal
personality disorder, basically.

And all of the people in jail,
most of them have antisocial

personality disorders.

And the fourth
component is... sadism,

that he actually gets pleasure

from harming his
enemies or taking

revenge or
humiliating other people

or subjugating them,
dominating them

in ways that are humiliating
and show his great power.

I recognized early on that this

was a very, very dangerous,
Hitler-like character.

And so that's really
kind of part of how

the 'duty to warn
movement' got started.

It's not just an
ethical principle,

it's a legal law
that if you become

aware that a patient
might hurt somebody,

you have a duty
to warn that person.

Hence, our feeling was, if we
have a duty to warn one person

because as mental
health professionals

we realize they may be at risk,

what's our duty to
300 million people?

(laughs)

It's got to be 300
million times greater.

So then, what is Trump's
defense to the allegation?

Does anyone really
believe that story?

I'm also very much of a
germaphobe, by the way.

Believe me.

I had to explain...

they said, sir, they said
when you were in Russia...

well, I was there for
so short a period...

Trump tried to claim that he
didn't stay overnight in Russia

during the night in question,
but flight

records later revealed
that to be false.

Big surprise. Right?

And they said this thing
with the golden shower,

and I said I didn't care
about the other stuff.

The other stuff was,
you know, nuclear...

I didn't worry about that.

The golden shower
was a problem for me.

And I said to our
great first lady...

She said, nope,
that one you didn't do.

See, I'm a germaphobe.

She said, that
one you didn't do.

So she knew immediately
- I had no problem.

I said, whew,
that was a close one.

That wasn't good.

Actually, that one she
didn't believe

because she said he's a
germaphobe. He's not into that,

you know?

(brooding music)

He's not into golden showers,
as they say

they call them. He's not.

I don't like that idea.

No, I didn't. I thought that
would be a big problem.

I was going to
have a rough night,

but that one she
was very good on.

She said, no,
you're okay on that one.

So what do you think?
Should we believe him?

I say we ask someone
who might just know: me.

But then the defense is,
oh, there's no way he

would ever do that
because he's a germaphobe.

And, you know,
that's one of the things

that people try to say
that I'm making it up

because he's such a germaphobe,
that he wouldn't...

(laughs)

In my multiple encounters

with him, he was
definitely not a germaphobe.

He definitely stuck his little
pointy tongue in my mouth.

He's the worst kisser on earth,

but definitely an
open-mouth kiss.

And didn't even
volunteer to use a condom.

Not only did he not use a
condom or offer to use a condom,

he didn't even discuss
the possibility of it.

I mean,
he doesn't even know if I washed

my hands when I came
out of the bathroom.

He just pounced
there in his underwear

when I came out
and surprised me.

Now, I gotta say, if you're
not the one getting peed on,

being a germaphobe
really doesn't

have anything to do with it.

If they're across the room,

that's not touching you anyway.

So does Trump not
always tell the truth?

Well, let's ask an expert.

So I wrote up all
of these findings

for the Washington Post in
an op-ed titled I Study Liars.

I've never seen one like
President Trump. At this point,

the first year of his
presidency, he was telling

an average of
about six lies a day.

And I thought that
was remarkable.

You know, that was so much
more than ordinary people.

He was just getting started for
a grand total over the course

of his presidency, of 30,573

lies, flip flops,
or misleading statements.

It's absolutely

astounding.

A lie happens any time you
intentionally mislead someone.

So people lie for
lots of reasons.

But ordinary people
lie for two main reasons.

The first is, they lie
to serve themselves.

They lie to get
what they want,

to look better,
to spare themselves

from embarrassment or shame
or blame or anything negative.

So it's all about themselves.

They also lie to be
nice to other people.

They lie to flatter
other people,

to advantage them, to be
kind to them, to spare them

from any embarrassment
or conflict or anything else

other people don't want.

When I studied
my ordinary people,

there was a category
of a kind of lie

that hardly anyone told,
and that was a cruel lie.

A lie told to be mean to
someone else, to disparage them,

to make them look like a fool,
to hurt them, to insult them.

The Atlantic magazine published

an article with the title

'The Cruelty is the Point.'

And so as we got to
know Trump better,

we realized this is who he is.

The cruelty is the point.

I think one of the motivations

behind Trump's
cruelty and his lies

is that he loves shock value.

And, it's not just that
he's shocking people,

although that's
a big part of it,

but that his followers love it.

Trump is just like,

here I am, I'm going
to say whatever I want.

And if Trump is
re-elected?

Oh my God!

Oh, that is so
horrifying a prospect.

And I guess I would say,
you know,

as if there were any
limits before,

there wouldn't be any now.

But, I guess the
one difference is that

I think, or at least hope,
that the

media would be
a little bit savvier.

I mean, I remember having,

you know, the networks on
or CNN on

in the background when I was
doing something, and they would

show shots of Trump's plane

arriving for one of his rallies.

This was before he
was elected president.

You know, he had them
twisted around his finger.

They gave him so
much free media,

and they didn't know how to deal

with all these lies
and this brazenness.

It even took them a while
to call the lies, lies, right?

(brooding music)

So Trump's claim of
being a germaphobe?

I'm also very much
of a germaphobe,

by the way. Believe me.

Well, if you want my opinion.

(laughs)

(machine rising in
tension)

(alarm sound)

(explosion)

Of course,
the media had a field day

with the allegation.

(dramatic choral music)

(choral music crescendos)

Hey, ABC news,
I'd like to ask you

about your big
Russian pee pee party.

No, no, I am not talking
about the pee pee...

(laughing)

because it didn't happen,

and it wasn't as
cool as it sounds.

Next question.

Room 1101, the presidential
suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel.

I rented it. The room
we've heard so much about.

And yet, no one has
come to check it out.

I don't know why.

It's not even like
it's in the past.

You're in history.

(laughing)

You're in it.

I'm saying the pee
pee tape supposedly

took place on that
bed is what I'm saying.

Pee pee tape, pee pee tape.

Roll 'em.

(sniggering)

(laughing)

I am Samantha Bee.

Welcome to Full Frontal.

Hallelujah!
It's comedy Christmas!

Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God!

Il Duce likes to douse
beds in floozy pee.

(laughing)

Of course, the true victim here
is that memory foam mattress.

It... can't ever forget.

(indistinct dialogue)
(laughing)

So how did the media
handle the allegation?

Well, the media
completely dropped

the ball with the
issue of kompromat.

You're right, the salacious
pee pee tape, you know, idea...

Whatever's on the tape,

the important thing
is that our president

is compromised by
a foreign adversary.

That's the important thing.

I don't care what's on the tape.

What I care about
is that our

president is working
for the enemy.

Christopher Steele

thinks he knows why
nobody has seen the tape.

So how do you explain if
that tape does indeed exist,

it hasn't been released?

Well, it hasn't needed
to be released.

Why not?

Because I think the
Russians felt they got

pretty good value
out of Donald Trump..

when he was
president of the U.S.

In 2019, a mysterious
videotape appeared online.

The video escaped the
attention of the media

except for one online magazine.

After an exhaustive review
of the tape, Slate magazine

determined that it was a fake.

Probably.

The Senate
Intelligence Committee

said that it was
aware of a realistic

and well- resourced
but fake video

of someone who looks like Trump.

The Senate never told us
why they thought it was a fake.

The rest of the footnote in
their report? It was redacted.

So why does Trump keep
talking about the tape?

I'm not into golden showers...

The golden shower...golden

shower...golden
showers as they say

they call them.

Trump does protest too much.

He keeps bringing
up the pee pee tape.

Right.

If it were really
just ridiculous like

you would just
sort of dismiss it.

You wouldn't keep...

But again, everything with Trump
is projection or confession.

You know? So the fact that he
keeps bringing it up

is another one of the reasons
to believe that it's true.

The fact that he keeps
bringing it up to deny it.

Could the tape actually be real?

What might it look like?

(fanfare)

(urgent music)

Mr. Trump, welcome to Moscow!

Hi girls.

No one's taping this, right?

Don't worry. In Russia,

we would never tape anyone.

Everyone is free now,

anything goes.

Okay, great.

I like the sound of that.

Whoa! Who's that for,
the Hulk?

Oligarchs.

They want much of everything.

Big mansions,
big yachts, big party.

Hey, the oligarchs are
welcome at Mar-A-Lago

any time Melania is away.

So that's the one?

That's the bed Obama slept in?

I'm supposed
to believe that?

Yes.

Okay, good enough for me.

Let's get to it!

I am starting to like Russia.

Cloudy with a chance of rain,
if you know what I mean.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Might have to move here.

Donald, take off your
clothes.

Me? No way!

Oh, okay,

if you insist.

If I ever run for president

and this leaks out,
it'll be political suicide.

Wait a minute, I know. I'll
tell people I'm a germaphobe

who'd never do
anything like this.

Genius!

Want to give it a try?

Don't have to ask
me twice, girls.

Take that, Barack.

And this is for Michelle.

And once more for Barack.

Hey, I gotta tell my
son Barney about this.

I mean Barron.

Now, on you!

Let it flow, ladies.

World class,

believe me.

Best flow job ever.

Wow, Melania will never
believe this... luckily.

Next time, girls,
how about a brown bath?

Ohh, I am so going to hell.

Okay, a little to the left,
a little more.

Who am I kidding?

A lot more!

(liquid flowing)
(gentle underwater sounds)

(liquid tension building)
(liquid explosion)

Whoaa!

I love Russia!

The previous animation was fake.

Probably.

Many people have noted
Trump's inability to criticize

Vladimir Putin and
hypothesized as to why.

Also is a person that kills
journalists, political opponents

and invades countries.

Obviously, that would
be a concern, would it not?

He's running his country
and at least he's a leader.

You know? Unlike what we
have in this country.

He'd rather have a
puppet as president

of the United States.
- No puppet, no puppet.

- It's pretty clear...
- You're the puppet.

It's pretty clear
you won't admit

that the Russians
have engaged in cyber

attacks against the
United States of America.

That you encouraged
espionage against our people,

that you are willing
to spout the Putin line,

sign up for his wish list,
break up

NATO, do whatever
he wants to do,

and that you continue
to get help from him

because he has a very
clear favorite in this race.

I mean, I've been with
Trump and Putin.

Trump is in awe of Putin.

He's... when you see Trump with

Putin, as I have on a
few occasions,

he's like the 12 year old boy

that goes to high
school and meets

the captain of
the football team.

(laughing)

My hero.

I sadly beseech President Trump

to apologize to the
American people for...

his disgraceful,
dangerous, and damaging

behavior with Putin in Helsinki.

What was he afraid of?

President Trump,
you first.

Just now, President Putin
denied having anything to do

with the election interference
in 2016. Every U.S.

intelligence agency
has concluded

that Russia did. What, who...

my first question for you,
sir, is who do you believe?

My second question is, would you

now, with the whole
world watching,

tell President Putin, would you
denounce what happened in 2016

and would you warn
him to never do it again?

All I can do is
ask the question.

My people came to me,

Dan Coats came to
me and some others,

they said they
think it's Russia.

I have President Putin.

He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this -

I don't see any
reason why it would be.

I will tell you that
President Putin

was extremely
strong and powerful

in his denial today.

When they talked about
did Russia collude?

He said, well, I don't you know,
he denied it very strongly.

Denied it very strongly?
What the hell is that?

I think it's bizarre.

I think when Trump
was in Helsinki

and met with Putin and,
you know, agreed with Putin.

I think it's just crazy
and outrageous

that this guy's a
bloodthirsty dictator.

This guy Putin, you know,
he is a skilled KGB agent.

He basically is manipulating
Trump to do his bidding.

Putin's influence on
Trump is well known.

You just have to look at the
pictures of the 2018 Helsinki

summit and see how
subdued the normally

boisterous and belligerent
Trump was,

to know who has the reins
of power in that situation.

And Trump learned
a lot as a propagandist

from the Kremlin
playbook of propaganda.

Because the Kremlin model is

called the firehose
of falsehood.

It is a high volume,
constant spewing

not only of lies,
but of doubt, of uncertainty.

And Trump is very open in
his slavish admiration of Putin.

He'll always defend him, even

at a cost of criticizing
the United States because

men like

Putin and Trump
don't actually have

any respect for their own people

or their own country, which is

why they steal
from their people,

they lie to their people.

And in Putin's case,
they murder their own people.

And what they
admire is raw power,

the ability to get
away with crimes.

And so for Trump, Putin has
been an enormous success,

and he would like to have
some of that success himself.

Trump's former lawyer,
Michael Cohen,

testified before
Congress in 2018.

And in doing so,
he provided one potential reason

why Trump refuses
to criticize Putin.

I lied to Congress
when Mr. Trump

stopped negotiating the
Moscow Tower project in Russia.

(tense music)

I stated that we stopped

negotiating in January of 2016.

That was false.

Our negotiations continued

for months later
during the campaign.

There were at least
a half a dozen times

between the Iowa
caucus in January of 2016

and the end of June

when he would ask me,
how's it going in Russia?

Referring to the
Moscow Tower project.

Mr. Trump knew of and directed
the Trump Moscow negotiations

throughout the
campaign and lied about it.

He lied about it because
he never expected to win.

He also lied about it because
he stood to make hundreds

of millions of dollars on the
Moscow real estate project.

The fact that Trump was actively

discussing a deal for a
Trump Tower Moscow

while he was running for
president,

and telling the public

that he was not
pursuing any kind of

deal with Russia,
really demonstrates

that he was in an
already-compromised position.

That's because he was
telling the public one thing,

and Russia knew that what
he was saying was a lie.

Which meant that they
had the power to expose

him at any time and
harm his electoral chances.

I continue to be fascinated

by the question around Trump's

loyalty to Vladimir Putin.

(brooding music)

There's many theories out there,
whether he simply

likes the idea of a strong
authoritarian leader,

whether he wishes he were
like Putin, whether he wishes

America was more
like Russia or not,

or whether that's mixed with
his strong desire to do business

in Russia - well-established.
Or whether or not it's linked

to numerous reports that
Russia may have helped

pay off his debt, particularly

loans associated
with Deutsche Bank.

Whether he's trying to
curry favor and retain favor

with a government, a
foreign government

he knows
aided his campaign

or attempted to aid his campaign
through Wikileaks' distribution

- through stealing
communications at DNC,

ultimately going to Wikileaks,
ultimately being used publicly.

All of this is likely
the correct answer.

I think there is
a host of factors

that give us a Donald Trump

who has wrapped himself around

Vladimir Putin to the
point where he's unable

to honestly critique him
and act in America's interest.

Trump continues
to wink at Putin.

One of the presidents of
a big country

stood up and said,
well, sir,

if we don't pay
and we're attacked

by Russia, will you protect us?

I said, you didn't pay?
You're delinquent?

He said yes. Let's
say that happened.

No, I would not protect you.

In fact, I would encourage them

to do whatever
the hell they want!

And Putin keeps meddling.

This morning,
the former FBI informant

accused of making
false bribery claims

about President
Biden and his son, Hunter,

has been released on bond.

Alexander Smirnoff is

seen here in the
blue hoodie leaving

court in Las Vegas yesterday.

Smirnoff is charged with lying
to the FBI, claiming the Bidens

accepted millions in bribes from

Burisma,
a Ukrainian energy firm.

And the tape?

Nobody has seen it.
So far. Does it exist? Hmm...

Well, if you find it,
let me know.

Until then, only Putin
knows for sure.

(brooding music)

I kind of believe in
the pee pee tape.

I don't know if the
tape's real or not.

I kind of hope it is, just
'cause that would be awesome.

But, till I see it,

no picture, no proof.

Is it really that far-fetched?

Anything is possible when it
comes to the orange hobgoblin.