New Revelations About Obama and Russian Election Interference

This weekend brought some significant news: Tulsi Gabbard, the current National Intelligence Director, revealed documents from the final days of Barack Obama’s presidency. These documents suggest that the Obama administration exaggerated evidence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its supposed ties with the Trump campaign.

Gabbard claims that these documents demonstrate a conspiracy aimed at undermining President Trump’s legitimacy following the 2016 election. “Over 100 documents released on Friday expose how this scheme was orchestrated by President Obama just before Trump took office,” she stated on Fox News. Gabbard emphasized that this isn’t about party lines; it’s a broader issue that affects all Americans.

Among her findings, Gabbard pointed out that in December 2016, after Trump’s election win, an assessment from the Intelligence Bureau concluded that Russia had no capacity to significantly impact the election results. However, this assessment was ultimately retracted under new directives.

On December 8, a day after this assessment was reviewed, top intelligence leaders—including James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper—met at the White House. Gabbard alleges that President Obama directed them to draw stronger conclusions concerning Russian interference.

Essentially, it seems that just before receiving a briefing about Russian activities, Obama ordered a halt and a subsequent meeting where security officials discussed a revised assessment that pointed to a more ominous interpretation of events. The CIA, under Brennan’s guidance, was in charge of depicting Russian intentions.

Interestingly, it’s suggested that the President’s daily briefing was postponed to allow for this intelligence update, which was evidently crafted to benefit the narrative against Trump. Evidence, including classified documents, points to an agenda driving these conclusions, yet the initial assessments were downplayed right after their release.

Mainstream media quickly picked up on this narrative. By the same day, the New York Times reported claims that “Russian hackers supported Trump in the election,” echoing sentiments from senior officials and other intelligence sources, while the Washington Post shared similar alarming statements.

This fueled ongoing fears in the media regarding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, painting him as a puppet of Putin, which stirred significant public and political discourse.

However, it has since become clear that Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 elections were not as impactful as initially portrayed. They didn’t hack voting machines, nor did they effectively manipulate social media to shift public opinion. Importantly, no evidence has surfaced linking Trump’s campaign with Russian efforts.

While this knowledge has been apparent, Gabbard’s revelations reinforce that senior intelligence officials shared these conclusions back in 2016. Essentially, they recognized that Russian influence didn’t pose a significant threat. Unfortunately, this sobering reality lacked the sensational appeal that mainstream media desired and was not politically advantageous for the Obama administration in its opposition to Trump.

Using terms like “treason” is something I approach cautiously—but it’s worth questioning whether we’ll see the same outrage directed at Obama and his intelligence team for fostering narratives that questioned the validity of Trump’s election, just as there was for Trump himself. Will serious criticism surface now for their role in promoting misleading claims about the 2016 outcome?

I’m not holding my breath.