Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election.
The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up:
Russian election interference
CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday.
Advertisement
The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems.
President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts.
Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding.
Shift in assessment?
CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday.
There was no shift.
The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.'
The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.'
Putin's intent
CLAIM: The Obama administration 'manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday.
Advertisement
The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later.
Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump.
Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.'
In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump.
'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.'
Steele dossier
CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday.
The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election.
Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated.
Advertisement
It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier.
FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied.
It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting.
The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
22 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump and Medvedev's War of Words Escalates to Nuclear Threats
President Donald Trump and Dmitri Medvedev, the former president of Russia and current deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, exchanged increasingly hostile messages this week that culminated in veiled nuclear threats from Moscow — marking a dangerous rhetorical turn amid rising tensions over Ukraine. In a post early Thursday on Truth Social, Trump warned Medvedev to 'watch his words,' calling him a 'failed former President of Russia' and saying he was 'entering very dangerous territory.' The warning came in response to Medvedev's rejection of Trump's recently tightened deadline for Russia to secure a peace deal in Ukraine. Hours later, Medvedev responded in kind, invoking the 'Dead Hand,' a Cold War–era Soviet nuclear command system allegedly designed to trigger automatic retaliation if Moscow were struck. 'Let him remember his favorite movies about 'The Walking Dead,' as well as how dangerous the non-existent in nature 'Dead Hand' can be,' he said. Though never officially acknowledged by the Russian government, the existence of the Dead Hand system was confirmed in 2011 by a retired commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces, who claimed it could be reactivated if needed. Observers suggest that Trump's targeting of Medvedev — rather than Russian President Vladimir Putin — is intentional, as it allows the President to appear tough on Russia without closing the door on potential direct negotiations with his Russian counterpart over Ukraine. The exchange followed a warning from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and close Trump ally, who said Monday that those underestimating the president 'will soon be sadly mistaken.' Graham's remark came shortly after Trump reduced his previously announced deadline for Russia to reach a cease-fire in Ukraine — from 50 days to just 10–12 — or face sweeping 'secondary tariffs.' 'It's not for you or Trump to dictate when to 'get at the peace table,'' Medvedev replied, in one of several barbed posts throughout the week. Medvedev, long known for incendiary statements on social media, dismissed the ultimatum outright Monday. 'Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia…Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' he wrote on X, using Trump's derogatory nickname for former President Joe Biden. Trump, for his part, has repeatedly cast blame on Biden for the war in Ukraine. 'This war has been going on for three years. It's a war that would have never happened if I was president. It's Biden's war,' he told TIME magazine earlier this year. In the same Truth Social post Thursday, Trump also lashed out at India, criticizing its energy and defense ties with Moscow. 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care,' he wrote. Trump's comments reflect a broader pressure campaign on countries that continue economic ties with Moscow more than three years into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Putin has avoided direct comment on the new ultimatum, the Kremlin has said it is monitoring the situation. Medvedev, meanwhile, has taken the lead in publicly confronting Trump, despite holding a largely symbolic role in the Russian leadership. Medvedev, who served as president of Russia from 2008 to 2012 and as prime minister until 2020, has since refashioned himself as one of the most hardline voices within the Russian establishment. Once seen as a pro-Western liberal, he now routinely makes aggressive statements invoking nuclear conflict and civilizational war with the West — remarks that analysts say are almost certainly sanctioned by the Kremlin.
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs Trump imposed on U.S. trading partners. U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Latest: US inflation ticked higher last month, as Trump's latest tariff deadline nears
A key U.S. inflation gauge rose last month, in a sign that President Donald Trump's broad-based tariffs are starting to lift prices for many goods. Prices rose 2.6% in June compared with a year ago, the Commerce Department said on Thursday, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, prices rose 2.8% in the past year, the same as the previous month, which was revised higher. Meanwhile, Trump has announced a flurry of trade activity ahead of his latest deadline Friday to impose even steeper import taxes on goods coming from countries around the world. A handful of trade deals have trickled in — most recently with South Korea and Pakistan — but many details remain hazy. Thorny negotiations for most trading partners remain up in the air. And, while Trump may have gotten his way with tariffs on some countries, his overhaul of American trade policy still faces a challenge in federal court. Here's the Latest: Trump lashes out at India for its relationship with Russia The U.S. president on Truth Social suggested that he plans to do as little trade as possible with India and Russia. 'I don't care what India does with Russia,' Trump posted. 'They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World. Likewise, Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let's keep it that way.' Trump announced on Wednesday 25% tariffs on goods from India and additional penalties for India's reliance on Russia for oil and military equipment. Trump also issued a warning to Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, saying that he should 'watch his words' and that he's 'entering very dangerous territory!' Trump is using Canada's recognition of the Palestinian state in trade talks Trump said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state 'will make it very hard' for the U.S. to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. The threat posted in the early hours Thursday on Trump's social media network is the latest way he has sought to use his trade war to coerce countries on unrelated issues and is a swing from the ambivalence he has expressed about other countries making such a move. 'Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine,' Trump said in his post on Truth Social just past midnight. 'That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' Canada!!!' The Republican president said this week that he didn't mind British Prime Minister Keir Starmer taking a position on the issue of formally recognizing Palestinian statehood. And last week, he said that French President Emmanuel Macron's similar move was 'not going to change anything.' ▶ Read more about Trump's trade talks with Canada. US and Pakistan announce trade agreement The U.S. and Pakistan reached a trade agreement expected to allow Washington to help develop Pakistan's largely untapped oil reserves and lower tariffs for the South Asian country, officials from both nations said Thursday. 'We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'We are in the process of choosing the oil company that will lead this partnership.' Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the 'long-awaited' deal and thanked Trump for playing a key role in finalizing it. Pakistan's Finance Ministry said in a statement early Thursday the agreement aims to boost bilateral trade, expand market access, attract investment and foster cooperation in areas of mutual interest. The deal includes a reduction in reciprocal tariffs, particularly on Pakistani exports to the U.S., the statement from the ministry said. A new figure wasn't immediately provided. ▶ Read more about the Pakistan's trade agreement with the U.S. Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court Trump may have gotten his way with tariffs on some countries, but his overhaul of American trade policy has not gone unchallenged. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade agreed that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster tariffs on imports from almost every country in the world. Now, on Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. ▶ Read more about the challenge in federal court. Indian government assesses the impact of the US's coming tariffs India's Trade Minister Piyush Goyal on Thursday said the Indian government is in talks with exporters, industries and other stakeholders to assess the impact of 25% import tariff imposed by the U.S. on Indian goods. In a statement to the parliament, Goyal said the government will take all necessary steps to secure and advance the national interest. The minister said India has in the past decade transformed from being one of the fragile fives to the fastest growing major economy in the world. Goyal's comments were seen in contrast to Trump's social media post early Thursday wherein he slammed India and Russia, saying 'they can take their dead economies down together.' India relies heavily on imported crude oil, particularly from Russia India is currently the third biggest importer of oil after China and the United States, depending heavily on imported crude oil. Over 80% of India's crude oil is imported. Russia is the biggest supplier to India — followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the United States. Earlier this month, the country's crude processors were hit by the EU's sanctions on Indian diesel imports made from Russian oil, with Nayara Energy, an Indo-Russian oil refining and marketing company specifically targeted with penalties. 'Whether India will stop importing from Russia, depends on what the penalty is. The country will weigh its options before deciding,' said Sangeeta Godbole, a former trade negotiator with three decades of experience in the Indian government. Godbole said the vagueness of the penalty threat issued by the U.S. might be deliberate. 'It's all so fluid right now. According to me, the only people we can turn to are the Middle-East countries but they are part of the OPEC+ just like Russia,' she added. Top Indian business association expresses disappointment with 25% tariff rate The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said it was disappointed with the imposition of 25% import tariffs and an additional penalty on Indian goods by the U.S. The 'move is unfortunate and will have a clear bearing on our exports,' said Harsha Vardhan Agarwal, president of the industry body. Agarwal hoped the higher tariffs will be short-lived and the two countries finalize a bilateral trade agreement soon. 'India and U.S. have a long-standing partnership, which is strengthened by our deepening engagement across an array of areas from technology to defense to energy and advance manufacturing. There is a lot our two countries can achieve together,' Agarwal said in a statement late Wednesday. US-South Korea trade deal includes $150 billion shipbuilding investment A top South Korean official says the $350 billion investment fund announced earlier by Trump includes $150 billion for cooperation on the shipbuilding industry. Kim Yong-beom, the presidential chief of staff for policy, told reporters in Seoul on Thursday that the $150 billion fund is 'the most noteworthy' part of the deal, saying it covers cooperation on all major parts of the shipbuilding industry such as constructions, maintenances, repairs and overhauls of vessels. He says South Korean companies have world-class shipbuilding capabilities and U.S. companies hold strengths in software sectors. South Korean president hails trade deal with the US South Korea's president hailed the trade deal announced by Trump Thursday, saying it would serve as a chance to further strengthen economic cooperation and military alliance with the United States. In a Facebook post, Lee Jae Myung said the $350 billion investment fund is meant to solidify a foundation for bilateral cooperation on strategic industries. The fund will play a role of supporting the entrance to the U.S. market by South Korean companies in areas where they excel such as shipbuilding, semiconductors, secondary batteries, biotechnology and energy. Lee also said the deal would remove uncertainty surrounding South Korea's export environment as the U.S. 15% tariff for goods from South Korea is a lower or similar figure facing other major trade competitors. 'The government was only engaged in negotiations by placing a top priority on national interests,' Lee said. 'It's important to pull out a mutually beneficial agreement, rather than seeking unilateral benefits.'
