Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asserts that newly declassified documents reveal former President Barack Obama was involved in orchestrating the narrative that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
That should come as no surprise.
It’s been established for years that in July 2016, CIA Director John Brennan briefed Obama on Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy to “vilify” Trump by linking him to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Despite being aware of this, Obama withheld key intelligence on Russia from Trump’s transition team and ordered the creation of an intelligence assessment.
Typically, such assessments take months of careful review and coordination among intelligence agencies. In this case, however, the report was hastily assembled in just a few weeks, allowing the Obama administration to shape both the content and the public messaging before leaving office.
The rushed nature of the report is evident: while it included the Steele dossier—an opposition research file paid for by Democrats—it excluded the perspectives of two senior CIA officers who disputed the claim that Putin was trying to help Trump. In fact, many career officials expressed doubts about that assertion.
It defies belief that Obama was unaware of evidence that could have exonerated Trump, especially concerning Clinton’s role in promoting the Russia collusion narrative. A credible report alleging such serious charges about a president-elect’s campaign should have been handled with exceptional care. Instead, it was used as a political weapon.
In the final hours of the Obama presidency, National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent herself an email noting that in a meeting with FBI Director James Comey, Obama had emphasized the investigation proceed “by the book.” The timing of that message raises questions. Why would this need to be emphasized, unless it hadn’t been the norm?
Clearly, it wasn’t. The Russia probe was one of the most egregious political manipulations in U.S. history. The resulting hysteria crippled Trump’s presidency from the outset. The media, driven by anonymous sources, ran with story after story, regardless of how implausible.
“Mr. President,” Rep. Adam Schiff said in 2017, “the Russians hacked our election and interfered. No one disputes this now but you.” Anyone questioning that claim was labeled a foreign stooge. Polls showed over 60% of Democrats believed Russia had changed vote totals. Yet not a single investigation—not even Robert Mueller’s—found any evidence of collusion.
The damage to public trust in elections and institutions has been profound.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has launched a “strike force” to probe the findings about Obama’s role. Gabbard has already accused Obama of “treason,” a charge Trump also echoed. Some believe Gabbard’s document releases are meant to shift focus from the ongoing Epstein scandal.
But expectations of accountability may be misplaced.
Those hoping to see Obama in handcuffs are likely to be disappointed. Statutes of limitations have run out on many potential offenses. Even if Bondi could prove wrongdoing, the recent Trump v. United States ruling likely shields Obama from prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity.
Corruption of this nature rarely leaves a paper trail. Participants don’t need explicit instructions—everyone knows their role. Intelligence leaders hold vast authority, and while it’s evident their power was abused in this case, proving it in court would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Still, none of this excuses the actions taken. The public deserves the truth. Even if justice is never served in court, the historical record matters.
