Tulsi Gabbard has stated that many Russians believed Hillary Clinton’s victory in the 2016 election was “inevitable,” according to comments made on a podcast hosted by Miranda Devine. Gabbard, the former National Intelligence Director, argued that while the narrative has been about Russian interference aiding President Trump, their true aim was to be prepared for a Clinton presidency, as referenced in a recently released intelligence report.
“Honestly, I was surprised these documents were still around,” Gabbard remarked during the podcast, noting that Russia expected Clinton to come out on top. “They thought it was going to happen,” she added.
Recently, Gabbard’s team disclosed numerous documents shedding light on the intelligence community’s strategies during the 2016 election pertaining to Russian meddling. This included a report from the House Intelligence Committee which accused Clinton of receiving intel suggesting that Trump was sedated with “heavy tranquilizers” and feared losing.
She expressed curiosity as to why, if Russia’s goal was to support Trump, their intelligence didn’t leak more damaging information about Clinton. “If the goal was to help Trump, then why was such information not made public?” she questioned, referencing the assessment by intelligence officials in January 2017. “It was held back because they assumed Clinton would win and planned to wait before revealing anything,” Gabbard asserted.
U.S. officials have previously claimed that Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the campaign. A 2020 House Intelligence report concluded that Putin’s primary intent was to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process without necessarily favoring one candidate over another.
“This whole Russian collusion narrative has hurt the American people and our republic,” Gabbard stated, acknowledging the toll it took on Trump and his family from these allegations, which she believes originated from former President Obama’s administration.
Critics like former CIA Director John Brennan and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper have condemned Gabbard’s claims as unfounded, especially regarding their involvement in the “Russiagate” activities.
According to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that Gabbard referenced, it suggested that the Russian government favored Trump. Clapper and Brennan argued that the assessment had not suggested any conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but that the Kremlin supposedly preferred him during the election.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Claims on Election Interference
Gabbard’s assertions focus on the 2017 Intelligence Community report, which she believes was politically motivated and aimed at undermining Trump’s presidency. Her claims differ from both the previous Obama Report and a Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Yet, Democrats have highlighted a Senate report that echoes some findings of the Obama administration, even garnering support from then-Senator Marco Rubio.
Key Points from the Competing Intelligence Reports
- The House report contradicts claims from Obama officials that they didn’t rely on the Steele dossier, which was connected to Clinton’s campaign.
- At a hearing back in 2017, Brennan denied using the Steele documents for any intelligence assessments, though they were attached to the Obama report.
- Moreover, senior intelligence officials questioned Brennan about the legitimacy of the Steele dossier, to which he reportedly responded with indifference.
- Senate investigations concluded that these documents were not utilized in the Obama report.
Obama’s Role
- Gabbard claimed that Obama ordered the 2017 report to push a specific narrative. “He was essentially directing a hit job on Trump’s presidency,” she asserted.
- The 2020 Senate report confirmed that Obama did request the report, but it did not comment on any political motivation behind it.
- Obama himself described the allegations as ridiculous distractions.
Did Putin Support Trump?
- The Obama report indicated that Russia aimed to undermine public trust in the electoral process while showing preference for Trump, but the House report suggested otherwise.
- The House report stated that Putin primarily sought to disrupt faith in U.S. democracy without necessarily favoring one candidate. It also hinted at hopes for Clinton to win in anticipation of using information later.
- A Senate report confirmed certain intel documents were provided to back evaluations claiming Russian preference for Trump.
Has Russia Changed the Election’s Outcome?
- Gabbard pointed to findings from intelligence reports asserting that Russia lacked the motivation or capability to influence the election’s result.
- All three reports seem to agree on this point.
In summary, Gabbard accused Obama of orchestrating a campaign against Trump’s election—an alleged conspiracy meant to illuminate inconsistencies with the U.S. democratic process. “Everything suggests Obama was on a mission to turn public perception against Trump,” she concluded. Obama’s representatives have denied these claims, insisting that the findings from the intelligence community remain consistent with the notion that while Russia aimed to interfere, they did not impact the vote itself.
Gabbard has referred her findings to the Department of Justice, which subsequently initiated a “Strike Force” in response to her claims.
