Washington, D.C. — Newly declassified intelligence documents released under the authority of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard allege that senior Obama-era officials knowingly suppressed, reshaped, and promoted intelligence to support a predetermined political narrative following Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory—raising profound questions about abuse of power at the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community.
In a nationally televised segment, Gabbard accused top intelligence and national security officials of manufacturing a politicized intelligence assessment designed not to inform policymakers, but to delegitimize the outcome of a democratic election and justify years of investigations against a duly elected president.
Alleged Pre-Determined Conclusion Ordered From the Top
According to Gabbard, the declassified materials show that the conclusion came first, and the intelligence followed.
She directly alleged that then-President Barack Obama instructed intelligence leaders to arrive at a specific determination regarding Russian interference—namely, that Moscow acted to elect Donald Trump—despite earlier assessments that found no evidence Russia altered vote counts or successfully compromised election infrastructure.
“President Obama delivered the conclusion that he wanted,” Gabbard stated, “and directed the intelligence community to find and essentially create and manufacture the intelligence to support it.”
If accurate, the allegation describes a reversal of the intelligence process itself: analysis subordinated to politics, dissent suppressed, and uncertainty concealed.
Senior Officials Named in Alleged Coordination
Gabbard named former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice as central figures in what she described as a coordinated effort to reshape intelligence findings.
The declassified documents reportedly show:
Earlier assessments expressing low confidence that Russian cyber activity materially impacted the election
Post-election revisions that elevated analytic judgments while downplaying evidentiary gaps
Selective sourcing, including reliance on disputed or unverifiable intelligence streams
Gabbard characterized the final Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 as a political product masquerading as intelligence, produced under pressure rather than derived from consensus.
Allegations of Strategic Leaks to Shape Public Opinion
Beyond internal manipulation, Gabbard alleged that classified information was intentionally leaked to the press to condition public perception before the assessment’s formal release.
She claimed intelligence officials worked “hand in glove” with favored media outlets, including The Washington Post, to lay narrative groundwork—effectively ensuring that any later dissent or nuance would be dismissed as denial or bad faith.
If substantiated, the conduct would amount to information warfare directed inward, using the credibility of U.S. intelligence agencies to influence domestic political outcomes.
A Narrative That Fueled Years of Investigations—Without Proof of Collusion
The January 2017 ICA became the foundation for years of investigations, culminating in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. While Mueller documented extensive Russian information operations, he did not establish criminal conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump, his family, or his campaign and the Russian government.
Despite this, the intelligence narrative fueled:
Continuous media allegations of collusion
Congressional and law enforcement investigations
Public suspicion regarding the legitimacy of the presidency
Gabbard argues the damage was not incidental, but intentional—part of an effort to override the will of voters who rejected Hillary Clinton in November 2016.
A Question of Accountability, Not Partisanship
The allegations outlined by Gabbard do not merely reopen a political dispute; they raise the possibility of systemic abuse of intelligence authority—including the politicization of classified analysis, suppression of dissent, and misuse of leaks for political ends.
At stake is not the reputation of any one administration, but the credibility of the intelligence community itself.
If intelligence assessments can be shaped to fit political outcomes—and then laundered through media and official channels—the distinction between democratic governance and managed consent collapses.
The declassified documents referenced by Gabbard are now public. Whether Congress, inspectors general, or prosecutors pursue further inquiry will determine whether this episode becomes another unresolved controversy—or a reckoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment