In a stunning revelation, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has declassified over 100 pages of documents that she claims uncover a deliberate effort by Obama administration officials to challenge President Donald Trump’s 2016 election win.
According to the New York Post, the documents, released on Friday by the Trump administration, suggest that despite early intelligence indicating no significant Russian interference in the 2016 election through cyberattacks, later actions and reports by Obama officials painted a contrasting picture, which Gabbard labels as a conspiracy to undermine Trump’s victory.
According to the newly released records, the Obama administration was informed both before and after the 2016 presidential election that Russia had no substantial impact on the election results through cyber means. This conclusion was supported by a Sept. 12, 2016, Intelligence Community Assessment, which stated that foreign entities could not carry out broad, unnoticed cyberattacks on U.S. election systems. Further reinforcing this, on Dec. 7, 2016, the office of then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper determined that no cyber manipulation aimed at altering election outcomes had occurred.
A draft of President Barack Obama’s Presidential Daily Brief on Dec. 8, 2016, acknowledged a probable breach of an Illinois voter registration database but clarified that it did not affect the vote tally. The same document also noted unsuccessful attempts in other states, emphasizing that such criminal efforts lacked the scope and expertise needed to sway the election. Despite these findings, the FBI under Director James Comey expressed disagreement with the draft’s conclusions, citing newly received information.
On Dec. 9, 2016, a significant White House meeting took place involving key figures such as CIA Director John Brennan, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. During this meeting, Obama directed officials to probe what was termed “Russia Election Meddling” and ordered a fresh intelligence evaluation from multiple agencies, including the CIA and FBI. This new assessment, due by early January 2017, controversially incorporated a now-discredited dossier compiled by former MI6 operative Christopher Steele.
Following the meeting, Obama publicly voiced worries about potential hacks disrupting the vote-counting process, despite earlier intelligence findings to the contrary. Attendees of the Dec. 9 meeting also discussed possible sanctions against Russian military and intelligence figures for cyber activities, contingent on meeting specific conditions, as noted in a National Security Council document.
Meanwhile, Clapper led an alternative intelligence report alleging that the Kremlin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails, which were subsequently leaked online via Wikileaks, supposedly to favor Trump.
Adding to the confusion, certain intelligence community members leaked assertions to the media, claiming strong confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directly influenced what they called the “U.S. Election Hack.” This narrative starkly contrasts with earlier internal assessments that found no evidence of direct vote manipulation through cyber means. A whistleblower from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence later revealed there was “no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means.”
The same whistleblower reported being urged by a superior, the National Intelligence Officer for Cyber, to accept the revised findings with the assurance, “You need to trust me on this.” In an email, the whistleblower expressed an inability to agree with the 2017 assessment’s conclusion of a clear Russian preference for Trump, citing professional judgment and available data. On Jan. 7, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released, which Gabbard claims “directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.”
Earlier this month, CIA Director John Ratcliffe disclosed a review of the 2016 assessment, alleging that Clapper, Brennan, and Comey may have intentionally skewed it for political reasons. Following this, the Trump Justice Department initiated an inquiry into Brennan and Comey for possible criminal actions tied to the crafting of the January 2017 report. Gabbard has since forwarded the declassified records to the Department of Justice, pushing for accountability in what she describes as a grave misuse of power.
Speaking on the matter, Gabbard labeled the actions as a “conspiracy to subvert President Trump’s 2016 victory,” emphasizing the severity of the alleged misconduct. She further stated, “The issue I am raising is not a partisan issue. It is one that concerns every American.” Gabbard added, “The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.”
Continuing her statement, Gabbard asserted, “Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.”
She insisted on thorough investigations, declaring, “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again.” Her resolve is clear in her commitment “to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”
The release of these documents has reignited debates over the integrity of intelligence assessments during critical election periods. As investigations proceed, the focus remains on whether the actions taken post-2016 election by senior officials were justified or if they overstepped legal and ethical boundaries. The outcome of these inquiries could set significant precedents for how intelligence and political power intersect in future U.S. elections.