Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a report Wednesday that challenges the credibility of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, calling it a fabrication riddled with misquotes, unreliable sources, omissions, and outright falsehoods.
Instead of acknowledging their role in promoting what now appears to be a discredited narrative — one that fueled years of “Russian collusion” claims, two impeachments, arrests, and heightened tensions with a nuclear power — major media outlets are working to minimize the impact of the newly declassified House Intelligence Committee majority staff report and discredit its findings.
Background
The House Intelligence Committee report is the result of over 2,300 hours of investigative work, including interviews and a review of source material behind the ICA. The report concluded that the intelligence community lacked credible evidence that Russia aimed to help Trump win the 2016 election.
Gabbard has called the findings evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy,” highlighting that the Obama-era ICA:
- Relied on questionable intelligence despite internal objections.
- Cited the discredited Steele dossier without noting its ties to the Clinton campaign and Russian sources.
- Omitted critical information — such as Russia’s decision to withhold damaging intel on Hillary Clinton’s health, which could have favored Trump.
- Based the central claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump on a vague, unverifiable phrase from a weak report that CIA analysts initially excluded until ordered by then-CIA Director John Brennan to insert.
The report also indicates that the Obama administration leaked misleading details from the ICA to the press, with outlets like The Washington Post publishing them.
Media Pushback
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins attempted to shift attention from the content of the report, framing its release as a move by Gabbard to recover favor with President Trump. She asked whether Gabbard released the documents because Trump had criticized her previous intelligence assessments regarding Iran.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back: “Who was saying that?” She added, “The only people who are suggesting that the director of national intelligence would release evidence to try to boost her standing with the president are the people in this room, who constantly try to sow distrust and chaos amongst the president’s Cabinet, and it is not working.”
The Washington Post took a different route, claiming that Gabbard’s allegations of a “seditious conspiracy” were “based on thin gruel,” favoring prior reports like the Senate Intelligence Committee’s review of the ICA. That report supported the conclusion that Russia interfered in 2016 to harm Clinton, help Trump, and undermine U.S. democracy.
However, Washington Examiner’s Sarah Bedford noted that the Senate likely lacked access to the full set of source materials. For example, she pointed to a memo declassified by former CIA Director John Ratcliffe, which contradicts past denials by Brennan and highlights procedural flaws in the ICA’s creation.
Fact Disputes
The Associated Press also downplayed Gabbard’s claims, running a headline stating, “Gabbard’s claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents.” Like the Post, the AP leaned heavily on the Senate report while refuting arguments Gabbard did not appear to make.
Speaking to Fox News, Gabbard said there was “a 180-degree shift” in the intelligence community’s assessments before and after the 2016 election — suggesting political influence after Trump’s victory. She noted that just weeks before the ICA’s release, the FBI’s counterintelligence chief and the DNI’s own officer had not claimed Putin sought to help Trump.
The AP implied Gabbard referred to claims about Russia manipulating the vote count, stating there was “no shift” in that area. Still, the article conceded that the newly released material showed internal dissent about whether Putin’s intentions were to help Trump or merely cause disruption.
Despite the framing, the AP acknowledged the presence of dissent within the intelligence community but downplayed concerns over tradecraft violations and the reliance on disputed sources.
