Gabbard’s Obama-Era Claims Lack Evidence, Intel Records/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed Obama-era officials conspired to undermine Trump, but declassified records contradict her assertions. Intelligence reports and internal emails show no shift in conclusions about Russian election interference between 2016 and 2017. Multiple bipartisan investigations reaffirm Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election, mainly to create chaos — not necessarily to help Trump.
Conspiracy Claims Quick Looks
- Gabbard cites declassified documents to claim Obama officials conspired against Trump
- No evidence found in those records to support her “treasonous conspiracy” theory
- Intelligence consistently concluded Russia interfered to sow division, not change vote tallies
- Some dissent over Putin’s motive, but no political pressure was found in reports
- The Steele dossier was not central to the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference
- Senate and House GOP-led committees affirmed findings of Russian efforts in 2016
- Gabbard’s claims align with partisan pushback, but not with documented intelligence
Deep Look: Gabbard’s Conspiracy Allegations Refuted by U.S. Intelligence Records
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tulsi Gabbard, serving as Director of National Intelligence, made headlines this month after declassifying documents she claimed proved a “treasonous conspiracy” orchestrated by the Obama administration in 2016 to discredit Donald Trump’s election victory. But a thorough review of those documents and long-standing investigative reports reveals no evidence supporting her allegations.
In her claims, Gabbard pointed to newly public emails and a five-year-old classified House report, suggesting they show Obama-era officials manipulated intelligence to cast doubt on Trump’s legitimacy. However, the actual contents of the declassified materials tell a different story.
The Claim: Intelligence Flip-Flop on Russian Intent
Gabbard alleged a sudden shift occurred in U.S. intelligence assessments — from downplaying Russian influence before the 2016 election to dramatically blaming Russia after Trump’s win.
The Truth: The documents show no such shift. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security and other intelligence officials consistently stated before and after the election that there was no indication Russia attempted to manipulate vote tallies. Instead, their focus remained on Russia’s covert influence operations — hacking Democratic Party communications and spreading disinformation via social media to fuel division in the U.S.
Putin’s Preference for Trump: Disagreement, Not Conspiracy
Gabbard claimed the Obama administration “manufactured” the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), asserting that Vladimir Putin preferred Trump. She cited a whistleblower who disagreed with the assessment.
The Reality: Debate among analysts is standard practice in intelligence work. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigated potential political pressure on the ICA and concluded analysts were free to express dissent and assess confidence levels independently. Even some GOP-aligned reports acknowledged the Kremlin’s meddling — though some stopped short of declaring that it was meant to aid Trump.
No Support for the Central Conspiracy Claim
At the core of Gabbard’s statement is the idea of an orchestrated campaign to undermine Trump. But after multiple investigations by bipartisan congressional committees, two special counsels, and the Justice Department’s inspector general, none concluded there was a political conspiracy to fabricate intelligence.
The consensus remained consistent: Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and officials responded accordingly based on evolving intelligence.
The Steele Dossier’s Role Overstated
Gabbard also accused the Obama administration of relying on the Steele dossier — a now-discredited opposition research file — to fuel the Russia probe.
The Facts: According to the Justice Department inspector general, the FBI launched its Trump-Russia investigation before even receiving the Steele dossier. When agents did obtain it, they used portions of it to justify surveillance warrants on one former Trump adviser — a decision later criticized for lack of verification.
However, the ICA’s core conclusion about Putin’s preference was based on a CIA source close to the Kremlin, not the Steele dossier. Even so, the unverified dossier was included in an annex to the classified assessment, but only after internal debate and over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan.
Media and Political Reactions
While Gabbard’s remarks gained traction in conservative circles and were amplified on cable news and social media, mainstream and investigative reviews have found no evidence of a political conspiracy. Rather, the story echoes a familiar pattern in post-2016 political discourse — reinterpreting vetted intelligence findings to fit partisan narratives.
President Trump has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of investigations into Russian interference, but his grievances have not altered the documented history of events.
In 2018, even Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly acknowledged he wanted Trump to win — a key point ignored by Gabbard’s narrative.
Final Word
The publicly declassified materials Gabbard released add no substantial evidence to her conspiracy claims. Instead, they reaffirm what years of investigations have already confirmed: Russia ran a covert influence campaign during the 2016 election, and U.S. intelligence officials acted based on the information available — not to undermine a candidate, but to defend democratic institutions.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.