Tulsi Gabbard Demolishes Obama’s Weak Attempt at Damage Control
“The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was ‘not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,’ but also indicated ‘that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.'”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s release of more than 100 newly declassified documents concerning the fabrication of the Trump–Russia collusion narrative during the 2016 presidential transition cast a renewed and significant spotlight on former President Barack Obama’s role in the matter. As investigative journalist Matt Taibbi described it, the documents put Obama “squarely in Russiagate crosshairs.”
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday, President Donald Trump took things a little further. Asked a question about Ghislaine Maxwell, he redirected the conversation: “The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold.” [Transcript via RealClearPolitcs]
What they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It’s criminal at the highest level.
They have it stone cold, and it was President Obama. The leader of the gang was President Obama—Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him?
Look, he’s guilty. It’s not a question. … This was treason, every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things nobody’s ever even imagined. … So President Obama—it was his concept, his idea—but he also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton. Crooked as a $3 bill. Hillary Clinton and her group, the Democrats.
Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there, so was Sleepy Joe Biden. We caught Hillary Clinton, we caught Barack Hussein Obama. They’re the ones—and many, many people under them: Susan Rice, they’re all there. The names are all there. I guess they figured they’d put this in classified information and nobody would ever see it, but it doesn’t work that way. It’s the most unbelievable thing I’ve ever read.
Trump: We Caught Obama's "Gang" Committing "Treason"
Read more – https://t.co/MNiZqJOyiq
"Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Crooked Hillary Clinton was right there with him, and so was Sleepy Joe Biden…Comey, Clapper. They tried to rig an election and they got caught." https://t.co/ad1mDn82A8 pic.twitter.com/ZtdgUWnSwZ
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) July 22, 2025
Afterward, following what was likely a frantic round of consultations with lawyers and advisors, Obama’s office issued a very carefully-worded response to Trump’s comments.
Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement:
Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.
These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.
Gabbard responded by promising to release additional documents on Wednesday to refute the disingenuous claims made in the statement.
And she delivered.
JUST IN: President Obama's office responds to Trump's comments. https://t.co/Mm2CpNHqYF pic.twitter.com/mhL6Mn6jTH
— Eli Stokols (@EliStokols) July 22, 2025
On Wednesday, Gabbard’s office released a September 2020 House Intelligence Committee report which found that the Obama-era intelligence community lacked direct evidence that Putin was on Trump’s side, yet the “implausible” claim was still included in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment at the “unusual” direction of Obama.
Fox News reminded readers that the Intelligence Committee was chaired at the time by then-Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a fervent Trump critic. The network noted that the “fully-sourced limited-access investigation report … was drafted and stored in a limited-access vault at CIA Headquarters” — well out of public view. Fox, which obtained a copy of the report, said it “focused on the creation” of the ICA.
[The full report can be viewed at this link.]
Perhaps one of the most damning findings in the report was the following:
The ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was “not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,” but also indicated “that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.”
Here are some of the highlights:
[The ICA was a] high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.
Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA. The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.
Hurried coordination and limited access to the draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting of sources and other tradecraft concerns.
[Brennan] ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard—containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible—and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.
The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws.
One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win. The ICA ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged-and in some cases undermined—judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.
The ICA did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.
The ICA failed to consider plausible alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions indicated by reliable intelligence and observed Russian actions.
The committee also found that the ICA was “rushed” into production “in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.” Additionally, the report states that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.”
Tulsi Gabbard strikes again.
A newly declassified 2020 House Intelligence Committee report found that the Obama intel community did not have direct evidence Putin wanted to help elect Trump 2016 but published it anyway on the orders of Obama. pic.twitter.com/SeQoUyX7yy
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 23, 2025
Additional findings from the report via Fox News:
- The ICA excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence in an effort to push the Russia narrative.
- The report also includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that “Putin told him he did not care who won the election,” and that Putin “had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.”
- The report also states that the ICA committed context showing that the claim that Putin preferred Trump was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
- The ICA suppressed intelligence that showed that Russia was actually planning for a Hillary Clinton victory because “they knew where (she) stood” and believed Russia “could work with her.”The committee also noted that the ICA “did not address why Putin chose not to leak more discrediting material on Clinton,” even as polls tightened in the final weeks of the election.”
It appears Gabbard effectively shot down Obama’s pathetic statement, doesn’t it?
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Scott Atlas shrugged. “Who is Barry Soetoro?”
I don’t think anyone really knows as the corporate press seemed wildly uninterested in doing background on their chosen candidate. This new revelation surprises no one who has been paying attention the last several years. The Marxist Muslim has been behind all of it.
There is little question that Russia wanted Clinton to win because
A ) she was already pro russia/anti US
B ) she was already compromised
Did Russia try to influence the election – yes
But not in the way that is the general consensus.
Ever hear of counter esponiage?
If Russia was trying to help trump win the election – then Why would clinton’s campaign be involved. Why would the Russians be so sloppy as getting caught trying to help trump.
To me, Russia’s supposed involvement to help trump was intentionally designed (sloppy) to get exposed to make trump look bad and thus ammunition to lose the election.
If Russia
Gabbard a true profile in courage, becoming historical.
Charles Wiggins would be proud as the floodgates hopefully open. No need to protect him anymore. This could be the break from the past needed by Democrats, but that will probably have to wait until Mamdami cements the deal.
if only Blondie would follow her lead
Agreed that the new release from DNI Gabbard refutes the statement coming from Obama’s office. However, it is still not evident to me the extent that Barack Obama influenced the ICA rather than was influenced by it. From what I know, it appears that DJT is a bit over his skies.
Over his skis? Gabbard published the very document that the FBI showed up at Mar A Lago to retrieve. With authorization to use lethal force. Obama lied, Susan Rice lied, Comey lied, Brennan lied, Clapper lied. All in effort to hamstring President Trump. This makes Watergate, the gulf of Tonkin and the tea pot dome scandals look insignificant by comparison.
I know you can’t answer this question objectively – but how naive are you?
Then you didn’t read the documents. All of the intelligence officials came up with the same conclusion that Russia had nothing to do with the election. Obama called a meeting and suddenly the next day Russia Russia Russia
This is what happens when we ignore the Constitution, which plainly COMMANDS that the President MUST BE a Natural Born Citizen, which meant at that time a person born of two parents both being US Citizens at the time of the birth. Da Kinyun’s Pappy was a British Subject when the kid was born. Its almost as if the Brits finally got their own back on us after kicking them out back in the late 17’s.
It’s skis, sport, not skies. If you can’t spell, don’t write.
Come on, sport, get real. We don’t need elementary school teachers with OCD here.
Why didn’t the Big Guy’s autopen execute a blanket pardon for Obama and his intel/DOJ guys? Did they somehow get on Dr. Jill’s sh_it list?
For one, they backed Harris.
For another, they were probably thought to be old news.
If only Obama were to be given a pardon, the excuse can be made against revenge prosecution. But everyone else be included? That screams guilty of seditious conspiracy and forever tarnishes Obama’s legacy.
Not only that, an Obama-only pardon puts the rest of his administration open to prosecution for the Russia hoax and Obama would probably be forced to testify against them. He cannot refuse since he’s been given immunity.
DR JILL hated Obama and Big Mike.
The crime of reason has no statute of limitations, nor can it be pardoned.
sticky “T” key.. the crime of TREASON has no……
Patrick- just keep pushing that lie about the widely accepted Russian Collusion until you can’t do it anymore.
Hopefully that day is coming soon.
I can’t think of any Judge or Jury that would find Barry Hussein guilty of anything.
Don’t need a jury. Need a special counsel.
Need to do a thorough look-see into Obama’s shady past. There is so much about him that we do not know that has been hidden. Do a little digging and there’s no telling what you might.
find.
Yep, the man that never was is our Barry Hussein!
He’s our Huckle Barry!
Any prosecution would have to be in Florida or Texas. Could not be taken in Ilinois, NY or DC. Blue state lawfare would nullify any attempt to team Obama accountable for their actions
unfortunately the prosecution has to be done in the district in which the crime was committed which would be DC. Its one of the reasons that HRC would never be convicted. There would never be a DC jury or a NY jury that would convict her.
Not if they valued living.
particularly in DC
Probably need to have the trial somewhere more “dependable” to do the right thing.
While I’m not shocked by any of this, I am wondering under what statutes any of these perps can be prosecuted. I thought it might be sedition, but sedition needs to be by force. Simply advocating sedition is not prosecutable. As for treason, that needs engagement with a foreign power, so again not prosecutable. So, how are these perps going to be prosecuted?
An act of War on the United States would also qualify as treason. I’d say sabotaging your successor in the presidency would qualify quite handily
conspiracy to defraud?
Ah, I like that. I hadn’t thought of that.
In all likelihood, Obama did not act alone – he’s lazy, and simply not smart enough to orchestrate this yearslong conspiracy. Find his puppetmaster, and there’s your foreign agent/power.
I nominate Susan Rice.
I am tired unto death about “bombshells”, or “crushing”, or any other superlative that describes some new revelation about how crooked the Dem-wing is. We all know it already, at least anybody with 2 spare brain cells to click together.
Let me know when they’re handcuffed, perp-walked, tried, convicted, and then actually sentenced to jail time. It’s only then that I’ll believe that ANYTHING has changed in the Swamp.
I agree. Nothing will happen. Not one single solitary thing.
Watch the words used by some in the administration related to potential charges.
This aligns with what I’ve been saying as well—Biden DOJ dusted off seditious conspiracy statute for 2 dozen J6ers resulting in several convictions.
If it applies to nonviolent political protesters, the law certainly can apply to Russiagate conspirators.
https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1948025365617652031
Treason is narrowly defined and reserved for acts that betray the nation during wartime or aid its enemies. Sedition is broader and applies to inciting rebellion or obstructing lawful authority — even without direct war involvement. Precision in language isn’t just academic nitpicking — it’s essential for justice,
I thought it would be sedition, but I found that to be charged for sedition, the perp has to have engaged or plan to engage in some forceful action (i.e., violent action).
They did engage in a plan. We even have the documents they produced as part of that plan.
Here are the laws about treason and sedition. Read the one about sedition to see that force must be involved: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim
Perhaps the force need not be violent, but any movement from the original based on the conspiracy “to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States.”
From what I have read elsewhere, the force must be of the violent kind.
What they did aided the enemies of the US by willfully constraining an acting President. While it may have been primarily for domestic goals, it did compromise US foreign policy. The true agreements between certain governments … say Iran… by the plotters needs to be addressed. Just what did Kerry actually do for the Dems/Obama in his foreign jaunts?
Thank you. I’ve been saying that this isn’t treason, but few listen. What it was was 1) inciting insurrection, and 2) conspiring to incite insurrection. Those are exactly the things that were done. The actions themselves are easily documentable since those performing them did so proudly.
Whether the principals are indemnified against prosecution is debatable.
It is time to start canceling a lot of nonprofits, rip out Dem fronts & prosecutions begin.
Gabbard is proving herself to have been a good choice for appointment as DNI. Whatever faults her detractors claim are, IMO, far outweighed by her refusal to engage in the usual DC ‘go along, get along’ and willingness to be transparent with her true ‘boss’…We the People.
I’m a bit uncertain about the legal definition of treason.
The Constitution is quite clear in this with regards to elected officials and I believe that also extends to others
It’s in the Constitution, Art 3 Sec 3
‘Treason against the United States shall only consist of levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act or on Confession in open Court’.
The Founders were very, very wary of gov’t power, the potential for abuses and wanted to establish clear breaks from common law traditions misused by the Crown. The 4th amendment requirements for a warrant v officers of the Crown holding general warrants that did not require probable cause, supported by oath particularly describing the place, person or things to be seized or searched are another better known example of this effort.
I’m unclear about how Russiagate involves making war against the United States.
Sorry you reached your limit on free answers for the year.
“These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. ”
Distraction from what? Epstein? Dems had 4 yrs to release the files and didn’t so you can shut up about it, nobody is paying attention. Maybe you can get Spaticus Booker to run his mouth for several hours again because that worked wonders.
Next to their failed attempts to assassinate Trump, placing Tulsi Gabbard on a terrorist ‘no fly’ list, and labeling her a Russian asset is probably the dumbest thing the Dems have done since the previous dumbest things the Dems have done.
Burn it all down, and hang the traitors.
Worth a re-run:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMfIkz7v6s&t=23s
CNN cut away right as Gabbard got to the part about Obama.
Looks like a referral has been made to the DoJ. Your move, Bondi.
they were getting ready to put a guy in prison for a meme mocking hillary and her voters
they were throwing j6 protesters into prisons who maybe,,, at worse,, trespassed
f these animals
the left is in fact ACTUALLY GUILTY …not hollywood made up..not right wing conspiracy
It occurs to me that to detract from Russiagate, dems will turn to Epstein, and that may be the plan.
They will definitely try. To short.circuit the attempt it would be wise to release all the information minus redacted names of minors and blurred faces of minors. Putting all of it into public fills the current information void. Without a void there’s no fertile ground to plant seeds of the various conspiracy theories.
If I had my druthers, a special prosecutor outside DOJ would be appointed and given broad subpoena powers to explore every nook and cranny of what Tulsi Gabbard has made public. Then let the SP grant immunity to the the weakest and first of the co-conspirators who will spill all the beans and name all the names.
In my view, the best candidate at this point would be James Clapper, because he is seemingly less committed to the Marxist world view, reportedly had doubts about the whole Russia Russia fabrication of intel, and incidentally, he might like to stay out of prison. If he turned on Brennan, Rice, Obama, and the rest, he could be the John Dean of this scandal.
I think these acts mean there is no intention of prosecuting Obama, and likely no intention of prosecuting Comey or Brennan either.
If any of these scumbags are to be prosecuted these release to the public measures have to stop.
A good lawyer at this point could get everyone who has ever looked at Legal Insurrection disqualified due to prior knowledge and conclusion.
To put this another way
Chances a group of 12 New York Times or Washington Post readers do not vote acquit in under 10 minutes is zero.
If there is any will to prosecute the scumbags responsible these releases to media have to stop. By stop I mean stop immediately I am not aware of any conservative source not covering this, and the more it is covered the less likely it is conservatives will be on the jury.
Obama can’t be prosecuted for any acts that are arguably part of ‘official acts’ as POTUS.
I don’t this would qualify as “official acts”.
“Think”!
I would have to agree at this point. I can’t recall any instance of prosecution (or conviction) following document dumps such as these. Perhaps they know there is zero chance of conviction and they hope the court of public opinion is the best they can hope for? Or are they really all on the same team and will always protect their own? Is this how far this nation has fallen?
Hillary wasn’t just generically “vulnerable.” Russia OWNED her. They bought her with a $500 million bribe in the Uranium One case.
That was Russian money donated to the Clinton family slush fund (the Clinton Foundation), in exchange for then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her office to okay Russian take-over of 20% of America’s uranium supply.
Russia has all the receipts and could at any time expose how they had bribed Hillary to give them control of uranium one. She would’ve been at their mercy..
They also knew that she sided with America’s anti-fossil fuel zealots and would keep America’s vast fossil energy resources bottled up. That would keep the world price of oil high, which is Russia’s main source of foreign exchange.
Trump, in contrast, was promising to uncork America’s energy supplies, which would impoverish Russia.
There is no way Russia wanted Trump to win.
The only consideration on the other side was that they knew Hillary was insane and would readily start a nuclear war with Russia just to do something ridiculous like avoid personal embarrassment.
The magnitude of this danger would become apparent over the next couple years, with not just Hillary but the entire Democratic Party, which used to be America’s more Russia friendly party, becoming rabidly anti-Russia just to support their Trump-Russia collusion lies.
But before the election such concerns would have been hard to take seriously, leaving a Hillary victory as the far more attractive outcome for a Russia seeking to increase its power and influence in the world.