House to adjourn amid Epstein furor
Making a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room, Gabbard detailed a declassified version of a House Intelligence Committee report that she said provided 'irrefutable evidence' on how former President Obama and his senior officials allegedly ' directed the creation of an Intelligence Community assessment that they knew was false.'
'They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it was true. It wasn't,' Gabbard said.
'They worked with their partners in the media to promote this lie, ultimately to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump and launching what would be a years-long coupe against him and his administration.'
The new documents allege that senior Obama administration officials included discredited information in their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Gabbard said the officials 'suppressed evidence' and ' disobeyed traditional tradecraft IC standards,' including through the use of an unsubstantiated dossier created by British spy Christopher Steele.
The report is based on an investigation from former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blasted Gabbard's release.
'The desperate and irresponsible release of the partisan House intelligence report puts at risk some of the most sensitive sources and methods our Intelligence Community uses to spy on Russia and keep Americans safe,' Warner said. 'And in doing so, Director Gabbard is sending a chilling message to our allies and assets around the world: the United States can no longer be trusted to protect the intelligence you share with us.'
'Nothing in this partisan, previously scuttled document changes that,' he added. 'Releasing this so-called report is just another reckless act by a Director of National Intelligence so desperate to please Donald Trump that she is willing to risk classified sources, betray our allies, and politicize the very intelligence she has been entrusted to protect.'
Gabbard has turned her findings over to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for possible criminal referrals for senior Obama-era officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey.
Trump has lashed out at Obama, saying he's guilty of treason and calling for charges.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that Trump wants everyone involved to be 'thoroughly investigated and held accountable.'
A spokesperson for Obama called the claims 'outrageous' and 'bizarre,' pointing to a bipartisan report in 2020 from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which at the time was led by now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, finding that Russia meddled in the election to try to boost Trump.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he'd be open to a new special counsel being appointed to investigate Gabbard's claims.
' I do expect that whether there's a special counsel appointed, which some are suggesting, and/or in conjunction with the House investigations, that we will get the answers and there will be accountability to the extent that we're able to do that,' Johnson said.
Separate from Gabbard's findings, Republicans are furious over the years-long media frenzy around allegations that members of the Trump campaign worked with Russia to steal the election from Clinton.
'Allies of the president, including his own son Donald Trump, Jr., were disgustingly smeared as Russian assets and some even had their lives destroyed because of this vicious lie,' Leavitt said. 'The president's first two years in office had this distraction hanging over it and endless time, resources and political capital were spent having to debunk these lies.'
The topic dominated Trump's first term in office and made stars out of media personalities that leaned into the story. Special counsel Robert Mueller detailed numerous contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian nationals, but did not find evidence of collusion.
'Reporters at legacy outlets…were ridiculously awarded Pulitzer Prizes for their perpetuation of this hoax,' Leavitt said.
'It's well past time for those awards to be stripped from the journalists who received them,' she added. 'It's not journalism to propagate political disinformation in service of the Democrat Party and those in the Intelligence community who hand over out of context and fake intelligence to push a false political narrative.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership.' Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way,' Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects — including some for clean energy — take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' 'It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. 'And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes,' he said. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Maher: I was wrong that Trump's tariffs would ‘sink the economy'
Bill Maher is acknowledging that the doom and gloom predictions he had about the economy being negatively impacted by President Trump's tariff plan so far haven't panned out. 'I remember I, along with probably most people, were saying at the beginning, by the Fourth of July… the economy was going to be tanked by then,' Maher said in a recent interview on his 'Club Random' podcast with progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen. 'And I was kind of like, well, that seems right to me,' Maher continued. 'But that didn't happen,' the HBO 'Real Time' host said of Trump's trade strategy. 'Now, it could happen tomorrow. I'm just saying — that's reality. So let's work first from the reality of that, not from 'I just hate Donald Trump,' because that's boring and doesn't get us anywhere, and leads you to dishonesty' Maher said. Trump announced 'reciprocal' tariffs on dozens of other countries back in April, before a week later issuing a temporary pause on the hikes for most countries for three months. The 'reciprocal' tariff rate is poised to take effect on August 1. 'The truth is, I don't know what his strategy is,' Maher, a frequent Trump critic, said of the 47th president. 'But look, the stock market is at record highs. I know not everybody lives by the stock market, but I also drive around, I don't see a country in a depression at all,' Maher said with a laugh. 'I see people out there just living their lives. And I would have thought — and I gotta own it — that the cut, that these tariffs were going to f—ing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't,' he said. 'How do we deal with that fact? Because that's the fact,' Maher said.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
EPA proposing to repeal climate ‘endangerment finding' Tuesday
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will on Tuesday propose to repeal its landmark 2009 finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the timing of the proposed repeal during an appearance on the conservative Ruthless Podcast on Tuesday morning. He had previously said last week that he would axe the finding. 'Later today, we're going to be making a big announcement in Indiana,' he said Tuesday morning. 'Something that happened back in the Obama administration in 2009 was that they put forward this regulation called the 'endangerment finding,'' Zeldin said. 'Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' he added. The finding is not just symbolic: It also represents a legal justification for climate regulations, especially rules governing the auto industry that have significant environmental and economic ramifications. In 2007, a case called Massachusetts v. EPA authorized the agency to regulate climate change if it makes a determination that global warming poses harm to the American people. The first Trump administration did not go as far as repealing the endangerment finding, even if it did weaken climate change regulations. The proposal to repeal the finding comes in spite of decades of evidence that climate change drives an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather.
