Gabbard releases more Russia documents to accuse Obama of ‘manufacturing' intelligence
Russia
Donald Trump
Tulsi GabbardFacebookTweetLink
Follow
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,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
4 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
History Warns us About the Dangers of Trump's Brain Drain
Since President Donald Trump has taken office, elite Americans and academics are leaving the country. A quarter of those who responded to a recent poll said they would like to move outside the country in the next five years. And European countries are welcoming them. According to data released by the UK Home Office, between March 2024 and March 2025, a record-breaking 6,000 U.S. citizens applied to either become British citizens or to live and work in the country indefinitely. In April, over 300 scientists applied to France's Safe Place for Science Program, which promises 'a safe and stimulating environment for scientists wishing to pursue their research in complete freedom.' Americans are looking to emigrate for the same reasons immigrants have historically chosen to come to the U.S.: political and economic anxiety and instability in their country of origin. The immigration script of the past century has been flipped, and for academics, in particular, the loss of government funding has led them to seek intellectual freedom and the ability to conduct research elsewhere. While the rationale for emigration is clear, the potential consequences of their departure are not. What happens when a critical mass of middle-class, educated professionals leave the country? The exits of prominent people can have unexpected effects on a given country, embarrassing the regimes they've left, adding human capital to the places where they are welcomed. Additionally, when people emigrate, their absence consolidates power around the regimes they left behind. In other words, politics becomes more reflective of the ideologies and values of those who stay. Read More: What's in Canada's Immigration Bill—and Why It's Facing Backlash During South African apartheid, famous musicians such as singer Miriam Makeba were forced into exile as the only way to speak out safely against injustices. Makeba was very vocal in her criticism of the apartheid government at a time when most Black women were silenced by discriminatory laws, including pass laws that restricted movement, and denied the right to own land and even custody of their children. In 1960, she left South Africa and continued to use her voice— both as a musician and activist—to speak on the atrocities in her home country. Her 1963 speech at the United Nations called out global silence on apartheid and encouraged world leaders to act by supporting freedom fighters. In response, the apartheid regime revoked her citizenship and passport. Because Makeba was so beloved for her music and admired for courage, she was granted passports from nine different countries, including Belgium, Ghana, Tanzania, Cuba, Algeria, and Guinea. Among her American peers and friends were the likes of Nina Simone, Marlon Brando, Cicely Tyson, Ray Charles, and Louis Armstrong. Makeba was only able to return home in 1990, at the invitation of the recently-released Nelson Mandela, perhaps the most famous prisoner of the apartheid regime. Like Makeba, trumpeter Hugh Masekela was also considered persona non grata by the apartheid regime, which viewed artistic expression by Black people as an act of violence. Masekela was forced to leave home after the 1960 Sharpeville massacres that resulted in the deaths of 69 people and deepened political unrest across the country. Makeba and Masekela, briefly married, also collaborated in anti-apartheid music. Their impact on the politics in their homeland, even from abroad, was powerful, despite the regime making it difficult for them to interact with family. Their highly anticipated 1980 joint anti-apartheid concert in Lesotho was cancelled after the apartheid regime in South Africa pressured neighboring Lesotho and Botswana. While their music played an essential role in agitating for freedom, exiled artists faced numerous professional challenges and lost opportunities. Makeba's success in exile came at great cost; two of her children died in exile and she was unable to return home to bury them. South Africa also suffered from the loss of critical voices. Not everyone who went into exile returned home or was able to continue speaking up from abroad. Those who returned sometimes lacked the professional skills needed to build a life for themselves, having spent their prime years fighting for their survival. And in the U.S., they were often similarly restricted, as Jim Crow segregation mirrored many of the injustices that they experienced at home in South Africa. As South Africans were pushed out, apartheid became stronger and more violent to dissenters. Even children who attempted to combat the racist laws were killed or beaten as in the Soweto Youth Uprising of 1976. In the aftermath, songs became inspiration to those in South Africa. In 1977, Makeba and Masekela's joint song 'Soweto Blues' was a widely popular protest song about the massacre and a thorn in the side of the regime. Despite being banned in South Africa, collectively their music served as the soundtrack of the anti-apartheid movement. While pushing out dissenters may allow an oppressive regime to consolidate power or suit a nation's current political climate, it can have a huge cost—as America learned at the height of the Cold War. Consider the case of brilliant Chinese scientist Qian Xuesen in the 1950s. Qian had studied at MIT and CalTech and became a full professor at both universities. He went on to co-found NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in 1939, becoming one of the top rocket science experts working for the U.S. government. The U.S. government did not view his Chinese citizenship as a national security threat, because the U.S. and China were allies during World War II. This relationship changed after the war. In 1945, revolutionary leader Mao Zedong declared China a communist country. Chinese nationals living in the U.S. were suddenly seen as state enemies. A new director at JPL, where Qian was now working, reported his concerns that some of the lab members were likely communists. There was fear and suspicion due to the growing Cold War and the rise of McCarthyism. Although there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Qian, he was put under house arrest for five years until his deportation to China in exchange for the repatriation of American pilots captured in the Korean War, in 1955 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration. Qian's politically-motivated exile did little to help America's Cold War, and instead greatly benefitted Communist China. In 1958, he became a member of the Communist Party and revived his career. Prior to his arrival, China did not have a strong rocket science program. Qian became the "Father of Chinese Aerospace and Rocketry." He helped develop the Dongfeng ballistic missile and the Chinese space program. U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Dan A. Kimble called Qian's departure 'the stupidest thing this country ever did. He was no more a communist than I was, and we forced him to go.' Read More: The Brain Drain That Is Killing America's Economy In short, countries push enormous artistic or scientific talent out at their own expense. American brain drain will set the U.S. back decades in innovation and technology, and vanquish America's advantage in education and other major fields. American scientists have been ahead of the rest of the world on healthcare and technological advances like AI. Millions of people have long regarded the United States as a beacon of education and intellectual hope. History shows that an exodus of American academics will likely hasten a collapse of American education, not preserve it. Leaving can also have negative impacts on the quality of democracy in the United States. Citizen engagement across diverse perspectives and ideological lines can lead to a better and more inclusive society, ultimately leading to a stronger democracy. Consider the beloved Statue of Liberty, a cultural landmark, that immigrants were not only welcome, but made up the working fabric of America. Moreover, the exit of American elites and academics, many of whom are voters, can diminish citizen voice and engagement, leading to the decline in the quality of democracy. The historical lesson is a cautionary tale. As academics consider leaving because the current government's policies do not reflect their ideals, the vacuum created by their absence may be filled by people whose values align more with the government. For instance, in the wake of Qian's departure, anticommunist sentiment soared and McCarthyist witch hunts spread. And it took three decades before Mabeka could return to her homeland. Should academics choose to return, they might find America more conservative, and perhaps more flagrantly violent than it was when they left. Indeed, defending democracy is a game best played on home turf. Chipo Dendere is a Political Scientist and Assistant Professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College. Kellie Carter-Jackson is a Historian and Michael and Denise Kellen '68 Associate Professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal finding that allows climate regulation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.'' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.' Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,'' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.' ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Cargo surge amid tariff turmoil drives the Port of Savannah to its 2nd busiest year
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — Retailers scrambling to stock up ahead of anticipated stiff tariffs on imports boosted the Port of Savannah, one of the top U.S. container ports, to its second-busiest year ever, Georgia officials said Tuesday. The Savannah port moved 5.7 million container units of imports and exports across its docks in the 2025 fiscal year that ended June 30, the Georgia Ports Authority reported. That's an increase of 8.6% over the prior fiscal year and just shy of the record 5.76 million container units Savannah handled in fiscal 2022. The growth was caused in part by a surge in cargo since President Donald Trump returned to office in January promising heavy tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners. But double-digit increases Savannah saw during the spring months were followed by a sizable drop in June container volumes as Trump's on-again, off-again tactics continued to fuel uncertainty. 'It's just going to be this very up-and-down time until things get settled,' said Georgia Ports Authority CEO Griff Lynch, who praised Trump's trade deal with the European Union as a step toward restoring stability. 'I'm sure all of it will come together. It's just a matter of timing.' The Port of Savannah is the nation's No. 4 seaport for cargo shipped in containers, giant metal boxes used to transport goods ranging from consumer electronics to frozen chickens by ship, rail and truck. Uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariff policies has resulted in gains, at least in the short term, at other major U.S. ports. A 90-day pause the Republican president placed on new tariffs announced in April gave American retailers and manufacturers a window to build up inventories ahead of new price hikes. What happens to trade volumes in the coming months may depend on a big deadline Friday, when dozens of countries face increased tariffs on goods shipped to the U.S. if they don't reach a deal with the White House. The Port of Los Angeles, the top U.S. container port, reported its busiest June ever to close out fiscal 2025 with 10.5 million container units handled — a 14% increase over the previous year. At the Port of New York and New Jersey, the biggest East Coast port, container volumes from January through May were up 6.5% compared to the same period last year. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, told reporters earlier this month that Trump's tactics have created a 'whipsaw effect' as shipping volumes slow down with new tariff announcements, then surge suddenly to take advantage of delayed tariff start dates. The National Retail Federation is forecasting that cargo containers shipped through U.S. ports will drop by double digits from August through November. At the Port of Savannah, container volume jumped 22.5% in March to 533,995 units and remained above 500,000 container units through May. The streak ended in June, when container volumes fell 9.6% compared to a year earlier. Lynch said paused shipments of automobiles to Georgia prompted by tariffs on foreign cars contributed to a 16% drop in autos moving through the nearby Port of Brunswick in fiscal 2025. Last year, Brunswick was the top U.S. port for automobiles after passing the Port of Baltimore, which was shut down for weeks after the deadly collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Cargo volumes appeared flat in July said Lynch, who anticipates another decline in August. But he said he's optimistic the turbulence won't be prolonged. 'If they can nail these tariffs down, we'll get back to normal trade,' Lynch said.
