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
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
By scrapping bid for California governor, Harris boosts White House prospects -- if she runs
By closing one door, Kamala Harris has left another ajar. Running for California governor in 2026, which she ruled out Wednesday, would almost certainly have precluded another run for the White House in 2028 — something Harris explicitly did not rule out. There were significant hurdles to attempting both. To have any chance of being governor, Harris would have almost certainly had to have sworn off another presidential bid, convincing California voters that the state's top political job was not something she viewed, blithely, as a mere placeholder or springboard to the White House. There also would have been the practical difficulty of running the nation's most populous state, a maw of endless crises and challenges, while at the same time pursuing the presidency. No California governor has ever done so successfully, though several tried. Harris' much-anticipated decision, announced in a written statement, was not a huge surprise. Unlike others — Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to name a few — Harris has never burned with a fever to be California governor. She had a clear shot at the position in 2016, but opted instead to run for the U.S. Senate, in part because the role seemed like a better launching venue for a try at the White House. Privately, several of those closest to Harris questioned whether she had much appetite to deal with the myriad aggravations of being governor — the stroking and hand-holding of recalcitrant lawmakers, the mind-numbing drafting of an annual budget, the endless march of disasters, both natural and man-made. Not least, many wondered whether Harris would be content returning to the small stage of Sacramento after traveling the world as vice president and working in the rarified air of politics at its peak. There is every possibility that Harris will retire from public life. Sean Clegg, a long-time Harris adviser, noted the Democrat has spent more than two decades in elected office. 'I think she's interested in exploring how she can have an impact from the outside for a while,' Clegg said. For her part, Harris said she looked forward 'to getting back out and listening to the American people [and] helping Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly.' Doesn't sound like life in a cloister. If Harris did run for president, she'd start out as a nominal front-runner, based on her universal name recognition and deep nationwide fund-raising base — advantages no other contestant could match. But she won't scare away very many opponents; the Democratic field in 2028 will most likely be a large and expansive one, as it was the first time Harris ran for president in 2020. (And notably crashed and burned.) Charlie Cook, who has spend decades as a nonpartisan political handicapper, said he would view Harris 'as a serious contender, but no more so than a handful of other people would be.' Normally, Cook went on, her status as the party's most recent vice president would give her a significant, if not overwhelming, edge. 'But I think the desire/need to turn the corner and get some separation from Biden probably strips away any advantage that she would have,' Cook said. Harris got a small taste of the Biden burden she could carry in the 2028 campaign when two of her prospective gubernatorial rivals — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — suggested she was complicit in covering up Biden's mental and physical frailties. 'She could say she didn't know,' Villaraigosa taunted in a May interview. 'They can't prove that she did. But last time I looked, she had lunch with him pretty regularly ... She had to have seen what the world [saw] over time and particularly in that debate. The notion that she didn't? Come on. Who's going to buy that?' A strategist for one potential presidential rival suggested Democrats were eager to turn the page on Biden and, along with him, Harris. 'There's a lot of respect for her taking on the challenge of cleaning up Biden's mess in 2024,' said the strategist, who asked to remain nameless to avoid compromising an as-yet-unannounced candidate. 'But I think it's going to be a hard sell. She lost to Donald Trump who was convicted of 34 felony counts and run out of D.C. in shame. There is some blame there for his return.' Should Harris make a third try for the White House, it raises the intriguing possibility of facing her fellow Californian, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been effectively running for president for the past several months. The two, who came up together in the elbows-out world of San Francisco politics, have had a decades-long rivalry, sharing many of the same donors and, once upon a time, the same set of strategists. If the two ran, it would be the first time since 1968 that a pair of major Californians faced off for their party's presidential nomination. That year, Gov. Ronald Reagan made a late, failed attempt to overtake Richard Nixon, the former vice president and U.S. senator from California. At it happened, Nixon had waged an unsuccessful 1962 run for California governor after leaving the White House. While that failure didn't stop him from eventually winning the White House, it certainly didn't help. In fact, Nixon left California and moved to the East Coast, taking a job at a white-shoe law firm and using New York City as his political base of operations. Harris' announcement Wednesday promised 'more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' She said nothing about relocating or leaving California behind.
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
NYC primary that included dead voters' ballots is finally decided, but criminal probe swirls
A winner was finally certified in a hotly Brooklyn City Council primary marred by the revelation that ballots had been cast for dead voters — but a criminal investigation will continue. The city Board of Elections certified George Sarantopoulos as the winner of a Republican Party primary over GOP chairman Richie Barsamian on Tuesday after an expose by The Post that showed accusations of voter fraud that included the revelation absentee ballots were cast for at least two dead voters. A third voter said he hadn't voted but received a 'cure notice' that is sent to voters when their ballots contain errors such as a missing signature. Advertisement 4 George Sarantopoulos, Republican candidate for city council. George Sarantopoulos / Facebook The Brooklyn District Attorney's office is now probing the claims, according to sources. Elections officials uncovered two alleged incidents of voter fraud — the dead voters as well as 22 ballots that were discovered during the manual recount that could not be attributed to specific voters. Advertisement 'In a small Republican primary, unlike a mayoral contest, there were multiple ballot irregularities — including two absentee ballots who were casting for people who are deceased, and obviously the one person who was a living voter who did not vote at all,' Sarantopoulous said. 4 Voters feed their ballots into scanners during the first day of early voting at the Brooklyn Museum on Saturday, June 14, 2025 in New York City. Michael Nagle 'We can't let this stand,' he added. 'Democrats, Republicans and independents. We all need to know that we have a system we can trust. Period full stop.' Barsamian, who has the power to appoint BOE workers as chair of borough's Republican Party, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Advertisement Sarantopoulous ultimately beat Barsamian by a mere 16 votes to challenge Democratic nominee Kayla Santosuosso in November. 4 The Brooklyn District Attorney's office is now probing the claims, according to sources. George Sarantopoulos / Facebook 'Hot take: we shouldn't count ballots cast by dead people and shouldn't certify election results until we know the scale of the fraud involved. Voters deserve nothing less,' Santosuosso said in a statement. The winner of the general election will replace Councilman Justin Brannan, who will reach the end of his term limit at the end of this year. Advertisement The BOE maintains it has been thoroughly transparent throughout the recount process. 4 Brooklyn Republican Party Chairman Richie Barsamian attends a small protest outside a vacant lot at 2481 McDonald Avenue on Sunday, April 6, 2025. Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post 'We have completed a comprehensive and transparent review of all valid ballots, including a full hand count,' BOE Deputy Executive Director Vincent Ignizio said in a statement. 'The outcome of the race has remained consistent at every stage,' Ignizio said. 'In accordance with New York State Election Law, all valid votes have been properly counted. 'Our responsibility now is to certify the results and proceed with preparations for the general election in November. Any specific allegations of fraud will be handled appropriately by the District Attorney's office.'
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Notorious ax murderer who whacked his family released from prison early thanks to law backed by Gov. Tim Walz
An ax murderer jailed for life for hacking his parents and two younger siblings to death when he was a teen has just been released early thanks to a Minnesota law backed by Gov. Tim Walz. David Brom, now 53, was cut loose from a state prison on authorized work release on Tuesday more than a decade earlier than he was initially meant to be freed, Fox9 reported. The convicted killer, who was just 16 at the time of the infamous 1988 murders, was initially supposed to be locked up well into his 70s. Advertisement 3 David Brom, now 53, was cut loose from a state prison in Lino Lakes, Minnesota on authorized work release on Tuesday. Minnesota Department of Corrections But he became eligible for release — earlier than expected — under a Minnesota law passed in 2023 that banned life sentences without parole for juveniles. Gov. Walz, the failed Democratic vice presidential contender, backed the law and approved it after it was passed by the Dem-controlled state House and Senate. Advertisement Lawmakers with the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party said that the law was changed to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that banned sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders, according to KTTC-TV. Brom served more than 35 years in prison after he was convicted of slashing his parents, Paulette and Bernard, sister Diane and brother Richard, to death in their Rochester home Feb. 18, 1988. All four victims were discovered with multiple ax wounds to their heads and bodies. Brom, who tried to argue he was mentally ill at the time, was ultimately found guilty by a jury. Advertisement 3 The convicted killer, who was just 16 at the time of the 1988 murders, was initially supposed to be locked up well into his 70s. Star Tribune via Getty Images Still, he and other already-convicted offenders became eligible for parole when the amended law was introduced by Minnesota lawmakers as part of a public safety spending bill. Under the changes, the law now allows for juvenile perps who are sentenced to life to be fully eligible for parole after 15 years behind bars. Brom became retroactively up for release in 2018. If the old law was still in place, he wouldn't have been eligible for parole at least 2037. Advertisement Republican state Sen. Jordan Rasmusson had tried to fight to have the law amended so juvenile offenders had to serve at least 25 years — arguing the new terms were too lenient. 3 Brom served more than 35 years in prison after he was convicted of slashing his parents, Paulette and Bernard, sister Diane and brother Richard, to death in their Rochester home Feb. 18, 1988. Star Tribune via Getty Images 'I warned of this exact scenario during the 2023 public safety debate, and it is precisely the kind of outcome I sought to prevent,' Rasmusson told the Valley News in the wake of Brom's release. 'The Democrats' soft-on-crime approach has led to dangerous early releases like this one. The release of David Brom is a profound failure of justice and a painful betrayal to the memory of his victims.' 'Brom committed one of the most horrific crimes in our state's history. Releasing him now undermines the severity of that act and the suffering it caused,' he continued. Under the terms of his release, Brom will still be under supervision and subjected to GPS monitoring at a Twin Cities halfway house. The Post reached out to Gov. Tim Walz's office but didn't hear back immediately.
