Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
EXCLUSIVE: Recent documents indicate that the Obama administration may have crafted and politicized intelligence reports to support the narrative that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election. This development challenges the long-held belief within the intelligence community and raises significant questions about the integrity of the information presented to the public.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard publicly disclosed findings that suggest overwhelming evidence supporting this claim. Following President Donald Trump’s electoral victory over Hillary Clinton, Obama and his national security team reportedly laid the groundwork for the extensive investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
Key Intelligence Assessments Prior to the Election
According to documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, in the months preceding the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russian efforts to influence the election were minimal. A notable assessment on December 7, 2016, attributed to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, indicated that foreign adversaries had not employed cyberattacks to alter the election results.
A Presidential Daily Brief prepared for Obama on December 8, 2016, substantiated this view by stating, “We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” Although the Russian-affiliated actors reportedly compromised databases in Illinois and other states, the brief found it highly unlikely that these actions influenced any state’s official votes.
Assessments of Cyber Attacks
Additional findings from the brief noted that criminal activities of this nature lacked the scale and sophistication necessary to produce significant alterations to election outcomes. Instead, the brief emphasized that Russian activities were likely intended to sow discord and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
The brief also indicated that cyber criminals targeted election infrastructure but their attempts failed to disrupt the election significantly. The FBI had raised concerns that the Presidential Daily Brief should not be published until the agency shared its dissenting views.
The Impact of Internal Discussions
Email communications obtained by Fox News Digital revealed that on December 9, 2016, a meeting in the White House Situation Room convened to discuss Russian cyber activities. Participants included high-ranking officials from various intelligence and defense agencies. The meeting’s primary focus was to formulate a response to Russian cyber activity that allegedly aimed to interfere in U.S. elections.
The record from this meeting documented an intention to recommend sanctions against certain members of the Russian military intelligence apparatus. Following the meeting, intelligence leaders were tasked with producing a new assessment detailing Moscow’s tools and actions related to the 2016 election.
However, shortly after the release of the new Intelligence Community Assessment, claims emerged that the document contradicted prior assessments that had indicated a lack of Russian intent and capability to interfere effectively in the election.
Political Ramifications of Intelligence Reporting
Officials who spoke to Fox News Digital expressed concerns that the newly published assessments from January 6, 2017, were influenced by political motivations. They argued that this intelligence suppressed evidence gathered before and after the election, falsely implying that Russia had a significant impact on the election process.
One intelligence community official pointed out that the unpublished December Presidential Daily Brief clearly stated that Russia did not affect the election’s outcome through cyber means. Discrepancies in messaging and assessment underscore the complexities and potential politicization of intelligence surrounding the 2016 election.
Call for Accountability
Gabbard has stated that the information publicly released demonstrates a serious breach of trust and accountability among top officials in the U.S. government. She contends that this incident exemplifies a treasonous conspiracy aimed at undermining the electoral process and conducting what she characterized as a years-long coup attempt against President Trump.
Echoing these sentiments, Gabbard argued that pursuing accountability is essential, stating, “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” She emphasized that the integrity of the democratic process depends on ensuring that such abuses of power never occur again.
Future Actions and Investigations
In light of these revelations, Gabbard intends to provide all related documents to the Department of Justice to ensure accountability for all actions taken during that period. Previous reporting highlighted that both former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for their roles in the original Trump-Russia probe.
The criminal referral for Brennan came from CIA Director John Ratcliffe, following the disclosure that Brennan had promoted the discredited anti-Trump dossier for inclusion in critical intelligence assessments despite considerable doubts about its credibility. This dossier became pivotal in justifying the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.
A Broader Implication for Democracy
These recent developments prompt a necessary conversation about the intersection of intelligence, politics, and democracy in the United States. Reports of manipulated or politicized intelligence during pivotal moments in American history challenge public trust and raise questions about the transparency of government actions.
The investigation into the outlined conspiracy emphasizes that maintaining accountability is crucial for restoring faith in the electoral system. As Gabbard noted, the future of democracy depends on the ability to confront past wrongs assertively.
With political tensions remaining high and investigations ongoing, the implications of these findings could resonate through future elections and how the integrity of the electoral process is perceived by the American public.
