Despite attempts by Russian Agate to label it as “Russian disinformation,” there’s significant public interest in a scandal that allegedly involves Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a prolonged effort against President Trump.
According to a Rasmussen poll released Monday, a notable 65% of voters have been closely following declassified reports from national intelligence directors Tulsi Gabbard and Senator Chuck Grassley. Around 32% are tracking this “very closely,” while 33% are somewhat engaged, particularly related to Hillary Clinton’s actions.
Among the 1,172 potential voters surveyed between July 29 and 31, 54% believe that officials from the Obama administration committed serious crimes by “manipulating intelligence.” In contrast, 37% consider it “very likely” that wrongdoing occurred, while 17% think it’s “a little likely.” A striking 69% agree that it’s vital for those responsible to be held accountable for the nation’s welfare.
Some Democrats I’m Curious About
It’s noteworthy that the concern isn’t limited to Republicans. Poll findings reveal that 56% of Democrats are attentive to the ongoing developments, with 32% feeling serious crimes were committed. Moreover, 59% believe accountability is necessary. Comparatively, a larger percentage of Republicans (75%, 83%, and 86%) share similar views.
Interestingly, views vary across ethnic lines; Hispanics tend to be more skeptical about the scandal than Black or White voters, with 66% advocating for accountability compared to 51% for Black voters and 69% for White voters.
Additionally, men appear to be more concerned than women, with 74% versus 59% following the revelations closely. When it comes to belief in serious crimes, support stands at 60% for men compared to 49% for women, while 72% of men favor accountability against 66% of women.
This situation highlights the ineffectiveness of major media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, and CBS in shaping narratives, as they continue to produce biased stories yet seem to be losing public trust—like a boy who cried wolf.
In Gabbard’s office, it’s noted that ABC, CBS, and NBC spent 2,284 minutes covering Russiagate but only 2 minutes and 17 seconds on recent disclosures. When they do mention it, the focus appears to be on undermining the story.
Former CIA director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, and Hillary Clinton’s attorney Mark Elias seem to be hoping to downplay public interest in the matter.
Elias expressed his frustrations, pleading with the media not to treat this as a legitimate investigation but rather to highlight what he describes as “misuse and abuse” within the Department of Justice.
Well, it’s not 2016 anymore, and the public—along with Trump—seems more astute and resolute about accountability.
Gabbard argues that a bombshell review ordered by Obama claimed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, marking a significant moment as she introduced scrutiny into what she describes as an “Obama administration plot” against Trump.
This review concluded that Brennan, Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey were overly involved in drafting an intelligence report ahead of Trump taking office, forcing questionable documents into it despite objections from CIA Russian experts, raising concerns about “political motivations.”
An Unpleasant Plot
The intelligence community assessment (ICA) is a cornerstone of the Russiagate narrative, fueling doubts about the 2016 election’s legitimacy, and was pivotal in undermining Trump’s initial term.
In the wake of recent findings, Gabbard released further evidence suggesting that the Obama and Biden administrations utilized law enforcement and intelligence as weapons against Trump.
On July 18, Gabbard disclosed a declassified report from a December 9, 2016, Oval Office meeting, attended by high-ranking national security officials who produced intelligence that was later released.
Gabbard characterized the events as an effort to disrupt the will of the American electorate.
On July 23, she held a press conference where she mentioned sending criminal referrals to the DOJ and FBI, insinuating serious misconduct involving Obama’s national security team. She claims that Brennan suppressed intelligence indicating that Russia did not support Trump and released a declassified committee report withheld from oversight.
Allegations even surfaced regarding Russian intelligence that Clinton obtained, indicating disarray within her campaign, including attempts to link Trump to Russia to deflect attention from her own email server issues.
Later, Brennan and Clapper defended themselves in an op-ed, labeling Gabbard’s claims as unfounded and dismissing them as conspiracy allegations.
In response, Gabbard released a whistleblower account detailing pressures to conform to false assessments regarding Russian intervention in the election.
The whistleblower, an intelligence analyst, recounted being pressured to alter his findings, which led him to raise concerns to various officials, including those in the intelligence community and John Durham, but he faced rejection.
Result
Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, emphasized the need for consequences during a recent interview. He asserted that maintaining careers in the FBI and CIA is untenable if they are used to target political opponents.
This isn’t about seeking revenge, as detractors suggest. It’s about providing accountability for those implicated, restoring integrity within intelligence and law enforcement, and correcting the course for the American public.
