Written by Samuel Patterson.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has made public a previously classified report from the House Intelligence Committee dated September 2020, asserting that it demonstrates how officials under former President Barack Obama engineered an intelligence evaluation to propagate the notion of Russian interference favoring Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
In a series of posts on X, Gabbard highlighted the document, describing it as evidence of unprecedented abuse and bias in U.S. intelligence practices. She stated that the Obama team knowingly promoted falsehoods about Vladimir Putin’s role in aiding Trump’s victory, aiming to erode the incoming administration’s credibility and orchestrate what she termed a sustained effort to overthrow it.
Gabbard outlined several critical insights from the report, including accusations against Obama, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and associates for inventing the Russia narrative, ignoring data indicating Putin expected a Clinton win, relying on unreliable informants, violating intelligence protocols, and deceiving the public.
This disclosure follows a prior release from Gabbard’s office, which presented substantial proof that after Trump’s 2016 triumph over Hillary Clinton, Obama and his security advisors fabricated and skewed intelligence to initiate a prolonged campaign against him.
To contextualize this for informed audiences, recall that intelligence assessments are meant to be objective evaluations based on verified data, similar to how financial analysts compile reports from diverse sources to guide investments. When politicized, they can mislead stakeholders—in this case, the American electorate—leading to misguided decisions and eroded trust.
Trump’s Response and Calls for Accountability
President Trump addressed the matter during an Oval Office interaction with the press, declaring Obama culpable and labeling the actions as treasonous. He emphasized that evidence clearly implicates Obama, rejecting notions of broader group involvement and pointing to documented directives bearing his signature.
Trump reflected on his earlier restraint in not pursuing legal action against Clinton regarding her email issues, citing respect for her status as a former first lady. However, he indicated that the repeated attempts to undermine him necessitate pursuing those responsible now.
Expanding on this, various analyses suggest the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, ordered by Obama, overstated Russian intentions to support Trump while downplaying counter-evidence. For instance, it allegedly incorporated elements from the discredited Steele dossier in its classified sections, despite internal doubts about its validity.
A subsequent CIA review has confirmed that the assessment deviated from standard practices, with Brennan reportedly overriding veteran analysts who questioned the claim of Putin’s preference for Trump. This included suppressing intelligence showing Russian preparations for a Clinton presidency, such as accumulating compromising material on her to exploit later.
Such maneuvers raise fundamental questions about the separation of intelligence from political agendas. In relatable terms, it’s akin to a corporate board altering audit findings to favor one executive over another, compromising the organization’s integrity and inviting regulatory scrutiny.
Broader Implications of the Report’s Findings
The declassified materials accuse the Obama administration of a coordinated effort to subvert the 2016 election results by promoting a false collusion story, enlisting media allies to amplify it. Gabbard has referred the matter to the Department of Justice, advocating for investigations into potential criminal acts.
Key elements include the rapid assembly of the assessment post-election, ignoring procedural norms and analytic standards. Reports indicate that while some agencies held moderate confidence in Putin’s alleged favoritism toward Trump, the overall narrative was pushed aggressively, influencing subsequent probes like the Mueller investigation.
Further details reveal that Russian intelligence anticipated Clinton’s victory, amassing dossiers on her health and other vulnerabilities, yet refrained from releasing them. This contradicts the hoax’s premise that Moscow actively sought Trump’s success, suggesting instead a strategy to weaken the expected winner.
In my journalistic evaluation, woven into this discussion, these revelations underscore a perilous precedent where executive power manipulates national security tools for partisan gain, demanding robust safeguards to prevent recurrence.
Public reactions have been polarized, with Trump supporters viewing it as vindication of long-held suspicions, while critics argue it rehashes debunked theories. Nonetheless, bipartisan oversight committees in the past have acknowledged flaws in the Russia probes, such as overreliance on unverified sources.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s multi-volume report from 2020 confirmed Russian interference through cyber and disinformation campaigns but found no direct campaign collusion. However, it highlighted counterintelligence risks from contacts, a nuance often overlooked in heated debates.
Clarifying the dossier’s role: Compiled by Christopher Steele, it contained salacious allegations funded by opposition research, later disavowed by key sub-sources. Its inclusion in FISA applications for surveilling Trump associates has been a focal point of contention, leading to admissions of errors by the FBI.
Path Forward Amid Political Fallout
As this unfolds, calls for prosecutions intensify, with Gabbard labeling the actions a treasonous plot. Trump has echoed this, insisting on accountability to deter future abuses, particularly after enduring multiple investigations he deems witch hunts.
The report also touches on internal CIA dynamics, where Brennan allegedly sidelined dissenting voices to align with the preferred narrative. This included fast-tracking the assessment’s release before Trump’s inauguration, limiting review time and incorporating questionable human intelligence.
For those attuned to governance intricacies, this scenario mirrors historical instances like the Pentagon Papers, where suppressed information exposed misleading government conduct. Here, the stakes involve electoral integrity, prompting demands for declassification of remaining documents to foster transparency.
Additional context from recent disclosures includes timelines showing Obama’s direct involvement in briefing sessions and directives to prioritize the Russia angle. While defenders maintain the assessment was based on available evidence, detractors point to exculpatory intel omitted, such as lack of proof for Putin’s personal directive favoring Trump.
The broader narrative encompasses media’s role in disseminating the collusion story, often without rigorous verification, contributing to public division. In retrospect, this has fueled skepticism toward institutions, emphasizing the need for journalistic diligence in covering intelligence matters.
Gabbard’s initiative aligns with Trump’s directive to uncover origins of the probes, building on prior declassifications that revealed FBI mishandlings. As investigations proceed, potential legal ramifications could extend to high-profile figures, testing the justice system’s impartiality.
Incorporating a professional lens, this episode highlights the fragility of democratic norms when intelligence is weaponized, urging reforms like enhanced congressional oversight and stricter analytic guidelines to safeguard against bias.
Our Take
The unveiling of this report marks a critical juncture in reevaluating the 2016 election’s aftermath, exposing potential overreaches that compromised national discourse. While protecting sources and methods is vital, the apparent fabrication of narratives to target political opponents erodes foundational trust. In my opinion, pursuing thorough, non-partisan inquiries is imperative to hold accountable those who may have abused power, ensuring such manipulations do not recur and restoring confidence in intelligence operations.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Constitutional Nobody
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://politicaldepot.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
