Gabbard releases more Russia documents to accuse Obama of ‘manufacturing' intelligence

CNN

4 days ago

One day after President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of treason over the intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and sought to help Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a highly sensitive congressional report she claimed was more evidence of a 'treasonous conspiracy.'
The release of the redacted report, written during the first Trump term by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, was the latest step in a multi-faceted effort from Gabbard and other Trump allies to attack the FBI's Russia investigation and the intelligence community's assessment on Russian election interference.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Wednesday evening that the Justice Department was creating a strike force to assess the evidence released by Gabbard and 'investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard's disclosures.'
Speaking from the White House podium on Wednesday, Gabbard stopped short of accusing Obama of treason, deferring to Justice Department lawyers. But she alleged that 'the evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment.'
'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 were true,' she said.
Gabbard insisted the Russian goal in 2016 was to sow distrust in American democracy — not to help Trump, a key judgment of the 2017 assessment that Republicans have long challenged.
But her claims that the Obama administration 'manufactured' the assessment are not supported by the newly redacted House report — or CIA Director John Ratcliffe's own review of the intelligence assessment, which he released earlier this month.
Ratcliffe's review argued the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win the 2016 election should not have been a so-called high confidence judgment, which indicates the intelligence community's level of certainty, and it took issue with some of the analytic procedures underpinning the assessment. But Ratcliffe's review found that 'the overall assessment was deemed defensible.'
The House report — which involved intelligence so sensitive it was kept in a so-called 'turducken,' or a safe within a safe, at CIA headquarters — took a similar stance on the key judgment that Russia sought to help Trump, arguing that the assessment made analytical leaps based on relatively thin sourcing and failed to weigh contradictory intelligence highly enough, but neither argued that it was 'manufactured.'
Still, the release of the House Intelligence Committee review, led by former Rep. Devin Nunes when now-FBI Director Kash Patel was a top aide, was a long-sought victory for Trump — in large part because it pushes back against a similar review conducted by the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020, which found the intelligence supported the conclusions that Putin interfered to help Trump and there were no 'significant tradecraft issues' in the preparation of the assessment.
Gabbard's decision to publicize the report when multiple predecessors had declined to do so, including Ratcliffe during Trump's first term, comes at a moment when her standing within the Trump administration had been in question. In June, Trump publicly undermined Gabbard's assessment on Iran's nuclear capabilities and she was absent from at least one major national security meeting to discuss Israel and Iran. CNN reported at the time that the president viewed her as 'off-message.'
Democrats accused Gabbard of jeopardizing intelligence community sources and methods by releasing the report.
'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,' Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. '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.'
One Democratic congressional source said intelligence agencies were still in the process of proposing redactions to the document ahead of its release, but that Gabbard declassified the report Wednesday before the process had been completed.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to a request for comment.
A former senior US intelligence official said they were alarmed by some of the material in the report that remained unredacted, warning it could alert Moscow to how intelligence was collected and potentially endanger sources.
The report includes an explanation from the classified assessment that some judgements are based on a human intelligence source with secondhand access for several specifics, including Putin's order to pass collected material to WikiLeaks, Putin's views on Hillary Clinton, and details about 'specific, planned Russian Foreign Intelligence Service efforts.'
'It should also scare the crap out of any source we have who reports on politically inconvenient subjects,' the intelligence official said. 'If I were them, I'd be going dark about now.'
In 2017, the US extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government.
Trump and his allies in Congress have sought to release the House Intelligence Committee report for years now. The material that was being scrutinized was so sensitive that the CIA would only let congressional staffers view it at CIA headquarters, requiring their work stay locked up at Langley. The committee brought in its own safe for its files — which became known as the 'turducken' — that remained locked away at the CIA during the Biden administration.
It's not clear whether the full extent of the classified House Intelligence Committee report was redacted, declassified and released on Wednesday.
In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump allies pushed Ratcliffe, who was then the director of national intelligence, to release a redacted version of the report. But Ratcliffe ultimately did not so do amid strenuous objections from CIA and NSA officials, who warned it would damage sources and methods and US relationships with allies.
Instead, the report was part of a large collection of documents brought to the White House in the final days of the first Trump administration, which were redacted so they could be declassified and released.
The redacted documents were not ultimately released before Trump left office in 2021, though he did so in March. But an unredacted copy of the documents — including the highly sensitive intelligence that was redacted from what was released Wednesday — went missing and was apparently never found.
US intelligence officials scrambled to assess the potential damage of the binder's contents becoming public after it went missing at the end of the first Trump administration, according to a source with direct knowledge of the events.
There are hints at why the intelligence agencies were so concerned with the report in the declassified version released Wednesday. The report includes redacted lines that detail what signals intelligence the assessment had relied upon, as well as what Putin was being told and how it was obtained.
The House document provides one of the most detailed glimpses to date into the raw intelligence relied upon by analysts to produce the 2017 assessment — but one that is impossible to compare to the Senate review that reached the opposite conclusion on the judgment that Putin was aspiring to help Trump. Much of the documentation for that panel's reasoning remains classified.
The House report accuses Obama administration intelligence leaders of relying on thinly sourced and uncorroborated intelligence to conclude that Putin preferred Trump, while alleging that the assessment suppressed intelligence that Putin did not care who won and that Russia's intelligence services allegedly possessed damaging information about Clinton that was not released before the election.
The January 2017 assessment does note there was a disagreement on the level of confidence in that assessment: the CIA and FBI had high confidence, and the NSA had medium confidence.
But the GOP report argues that the conclusion was flawed, based upon previously unpublished intelligence reports, including three that were 'substandard.' One report, based on a single human source the House panel said was biased against both Trump and Putin, contained a claim that Putin was 'counting' on Trump's victory, according to the committee. That claim was interpreted in different ways by different analysts but was ultimately used to reach the 'aspire' judgment, the report said.
'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 report states.
The Ratcliffe-led CIA in its review found that the 'aspire' judgment was 'plausible and sensible, but was an inference rather than fact sourced to multiple reporting streams,' noting that it also rested on an assessment of 'the public behavior of senior Russian officials and state- controlled media, and on logic.' It said that the assessment authors had properly interpreted the sentence fragment.
The report also details what US intelligence knew about Russian intelligence material collected on Clinton that was not released before the election, including allegations about her health, which Republicans wrote 'would have created greater scandals' than the hacked materials from John Podesta released by WikiLeaks. Republicans questioned why this information wasn't released if Russia was trying to help Trump (CNN was unable to confirm the origin or veracity of any of the allegations).
CNN reached out to Clinton aides for comment.
The GOP report criticizes the assessment's inclusion of the infamous and discredited dossier written by British intelligence official Christopher Steele, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and alleged coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.
A summary of the dossier was included as an annex in the January 2017 assessment, after CIA officials objected to including it in the report itself. The intelligence analysts who prepared the report told the Senate Intelligence Committee the dossier played no role in the analysis of Russia's interference.
Special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr during Trump's first term, spent four years investigating a wide range of topics, including potential wrongdoing by the FBI and intelligence community during the 2016 post-election period. He never accused any US officials of any crimes related to the 2017 intelligence assessment,