&w=3840&q=100)
Was Hillary Clinton on tranquilisers during the 2016 campaign? What is the truth?
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacts ahead of the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump at the Rotunda of the US Capitol in Washington, US, January 20, 2025. File Image/Reuters
Recently declassified intelligence documents presented by US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggest that Russian operatives had access to sensitive health information about Hillary Clinton that included allegations of psychiatric instability and a daily regimen of heavy tranquilisers.
The documents, originally part of a 2020 House Intelligence Committee review into foreign interference during the 2016 campaign, were made public by Gabbard during a high-profile White House briefing on Wednesday.
What the declassified report claims about Clinton
According to the document released by Gabbard, Russia's foreign intelligence services had obtained what was described as highly sensitive information from Democratic Party sources during the 2016 campaign.
Among the most startling revelations were that Clinton, then the Democratic presidential nominee, was allegedly consuming 'heavy tranquilisers' daily and experiencing significant psychological challenges.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The report claims the Russian government was in possession of internal Democratic National Committee (DNC) communications that described Clinton's behaviour in terms of 'psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness.'
🧵 New evidence has emerged of the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history. Per President @realDonaldTrump's directive, I have declassified a @HouseIntel oversight majority staff report that exposes how the Obama Administration… pic.twitter.com/0sS4Df8yoI — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) July 23, 2025
In addition to these claims, the report also pointed to Clinton suffering from a range of chronic physical health conditions at the time. These included Type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The documents assert that Democratic leadership and then US President Barack Obama were privately disturbed by Clinton's deteriorating condition.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The text of the report notes, 'As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had Democratic National Committee (DNC) information that President Obama and Party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton's health to be 'extraordinarily alarming,' and felt it could have 'serious negative impact' on her election prospects.'
It further alleges that 'her health information was being kept in 'strictest secrecy' and even close advisors were not being fully informed.'
What Putin allegedly decided to do with the info
The declassified materials suggest that Russia deliberately chose not to release the compromising information about Clinton during the 2016 election.
According to the assessment, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed Clinton's win was all but certain and opted to withhold the information until after the election in order to undermine her presumed presidency.
The document says, 'Putin chose not to leak the most damaging and compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election; instead planning to release it after the election to weaken what Moscow viewed would be an inevitable Clinton presidency.'
These findings were originally compiled as part of a Republican-led investigation in September 2020.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The probe included interviews with more than 20 intelligence personnel and a review of background materials used in the 2017 Obama-commissioned intelligence assessment on Russia's influence campaign.
The current declassification by Gabbard has reopened debate over whether key details were downplayed or mischaracterised in that 2017 report.
How Gabbard has been going after Obama & Clinton
Gabbard also used the briefing to level broader allegations against the Obama administration.
She asserted that then-US President Obama and top national security officials deliberately manipulated the 2017 intelligence community assessment to suggest that Russia favoured Donald Trump, while knowingly excluding or misrepresenting other intelligence findings.
Donald Trump, left, looks on as Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, speaks at the National Guard Association of the United States' 146th General Conference, Monday, Aug. 26, 2024, in Detroit. File Image/AP
'There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false,' Gabbard said.
'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; it wasn't.'
She further accused former CIA Director John Brennan and others of basing key conclusions on unreliable intelligence.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Then CIA Director (John) Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterised intelligence and relied on dubious, substandard sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed a quote, unquote 'clear preference for Trump',' she said.
The released document also includes a section referring to a 'campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to 'distract the American public' from the Clinton email server scandal,' according to Fox News, which first reported the content.
How Obama has responded
Obama issued a formal statement via his office, dismissing the entire affair as a manufactured political distraction aimed at deflecting attention from other matters, particularly renewed scrutiny around files related to the late Jeffrey Epstein.
'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' Obama's office said in the statement.
'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.'
The statement added that the core findings of Russian influence efforts were affirmed in a bipartisan 2020 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee led by then-chairman Marco Rubio.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Multiple critics have accused Gabbard and the Trump White House of conflating the terms 'hacking' and 'influence operations' to create an exaggerated sense of conspiracy, while simultaneously seeking to rehabilitate Trump's image in the eyes of his base.
How Trump has reacted
Trump, long an outspoken critic of the Russia investigation and of Clinton herself, has embraced the newly publicised report.
He has repeatedly characterised past investigations into Russian meddling as a political 'witch hunt' and has used the document to reassert his long-standing claims of innocence.
In a video posted to social media, Trump went so far as to depict Obama in a prison jumpsuit.
When asked at the White House briefing whether Trump believes Obama should be prosecuted, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt replied, 'The president believes that this matter needs to be thoroughly investigated, and anyone convicted of crimes should be held accountable in this country.'
She added, 'As for what accountability looks like, it's in the Department of Justice's hands and we trust them to be successful.'
Notably, Trump himself was convicted last year on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in connection to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, he received an 'unconditional discharge' from the presiding judge — meaning he remains a convicted felon but faced no penalties or prison time.
Some legal analysts have pointed out that any potential prosecution of Obama or former officials would face significant hurdles, including a five-year statute of limitations for federal conspiracy charges and a 2024 US Supreme Court ruling that grants former presidents broad immunity for official acts performed while in office.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
7 minutes ago
- First Post
'If her name or complexion bothers you...': Ohio SG Mathura Sridharan trolled, AG claps back to troll
Indian-origin jurist Mathura Sridharan received racist backlash from online trolls after she was appointed as Ohio's 12th solicitor general. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost hits back at the troll by issuing a lengthy statement on the matter read more Mathura Sridharan was trolled for her Indian-origin after her name was announced as Ohio's Solicitor General. LinkedIn Indian-origin Mathura Sridharan was appointed as Ohio's 12th solicitor general. However, her feat garnered wrath online with trolls questioning why a 'non-US-origin' person was picked for the post. Soon after her appointment, Sridharan's LinkedIn went viral with critics questioning her credibility. All this prompted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to issue a clarification, slamming the troll for ignorance. Yost, who appointed Mathura for the post, said that she is wrongly being portrayed as a non-American. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'A few commenters have asserted incorrectly that Mathura is not American. She is a United States citizen, married to a US citizen, and the child of naturalised US citizens,' he said. 'If her name or her complexion bothers you, the problem is not with her or her appointment,' Yost said in a statement. 'Mathura is brilliant… she won her argument at SCOTUS last year. Both the SGs she worked under (Flowers & Gaiser) recommended her. I told her when I originally hired her that I needed her to argue with me. She does… All the time! Excited to promote her. She will serve Ohio well,' he added. Trolls question her religious identity However, Yost's take on the matter was also met with trolling as people pointed out that she is not 'American-American', with some even questioning her religious identity. 'Is she a Christian? That's the biggest factor that concerns me. Based on the bindi on her forehead, I worry she is not,' one user wrote online. 'Another American job… given away to foreigners,' another wrote. 'She's Indian. They all have a loyalty first to other Indians. Horrible pick. Un-American. The GOP is pathetic,' a third user exclaimed. When it comes to Mathura's career, before joining the Ohio Solicitor's Office, Mathura clerked for Judge Steven J. Menashi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Deborah A. Batts of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. She holds a Juris Doctorate from the New York University School of Law, a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as a Bachelor's Degree in Economics and Electrical Engineering & Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Time of India
7 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's America First biodiesel policy could cost US companies, consumers, trade groups warn
The Trump administration's push to discourage the use of foreign feedstocks in domestic biodiesel could lead to higher energy prices for US consumers and restricted domestic production, according to some refining and biofuel trade groups. The warning reflects ongoing friction between President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and the administration's traditional allies in the energy and agriculture industries over biofuels policy. Trump has promised to slash consumer energy costs , but is also trying to advance his America First agenda to support domestic production through trade protectionism - which can often make costs go up instead. At issue is a proposal from the EPA in June that would for the first time allocate only half as many tradable renewable fuel credits to biodiesel that is either imported or made with foreign feedstocks. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase the credits, called RINs, from those that do. While meant to help domestic farmers and producers, the new proposal - set to be finalized this autumn - would place unprecedented demand on domestic raw materials needed to make biodiesel like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fat, in a market that currently must look abroad to meet its needs. Meanwhile, restricting the number of RINs that can be generated through such imports will raise credit prices, with a potential spillover impact on diesel and home heating oil, according to the industry groups. "This credit restriction ... will jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuel production assets and raise overall compliance costs for all obligated parties, which ultimately harms US consumers," Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group representing refiners, said in a July 25 letter to top Republican lawmakers. The Advanced Biofuels Association also said the policy could mean ramped up consumer costs, by putting a $250 per metric ton premium on domestic versus imported feedstocks, according to a study it commissioned. "Economic analysis shows this would impose significant costs on US biorefineries, raise fuel prices for millions of Americans, and benefit only a narrow set of stakeholders," ABFA President Michael McAdams said in a statement. The White House and EPA declined to comment directly on the price concerns, saying the administration is still seeking public comment on the proposal until August 8. Others in the biofuel industry backed the proposal. "American farmers need all the demand they can get. We should be developing our capacity here, rather than relying on imported used cooking oil from China, or giving Brazilian feedstocks preferential treatment at the expense of US producers and their farm partners," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. However, US companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill that have global assets and process US soy, as well as foreign companies with significant US operations, will likely see negative effects. That includes Australia's Nufarm , which contracts with farmers in South America to grow new oilseed crops. Uncertain numbers The biofuel industry had not been seeking the import shift in EPA's June proposal, according to multiple renewable fuel lobbyists and company officials. The White House has since held several meetings with industry officials to hear about potential unintended consequences of the changes, according to multiple sources. The EPA's proposal in June was meant to set out biofuel blending mandates for the next two years. It included a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 - a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel - and projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The biofuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group, had banded together to lobby the administration to set biomass-based diesel mandates to at least 5.25 billion gallons. The mandate was just 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. Still, there are scenarios in the EPA's accounting that could lead to a lower volume outcome. If all the biodiesel and renewable diesel used in the US next year came from domestic feedstocks, for example, the RIN mandate would yield just 4.45 billion gallons, according to several industry analyses reviewed by Reuters. Ditching the penalty on imported feedstocks could help raise that number, according to the analyses. "That probably aligns with what the administration was trying to do in terms of supporting the agricultural side and farmers," said one industry analyst, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
Democracies snubbed, dictators courted: Inside Trump's embrace of Pakistan
US President Donald Trump looks on as a member of the media raises their hand, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, August 1, 2025. File Image/Reuters On July 31, 2025, Lara Loomer launched a broadside against billionaire Tom Barrack, President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria. Loomer, whose outside vetting of Trump appointees has led to waves of firings across his national security bureaucracy, pulled no punches. 'His [Barrack's] appointment to high-level diplomatic posts is alarming, given that his primary expertise lies in leveraging political connections for financial gain,' she wrote. His actions have enabled Islamists to thrive, even at the expense of US national security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Barrack has a history of opaque financial dealings and what many view as political influence peddling,' she continued. 'His real estate empire, intertwined with Gulf investments, has long raised concerns about conflicts of interest and whether he is truly serving America or if he is flashing his political access.' She included in her tweet a copy of Barrack's 2018 indictment for acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Middle East interests. Barrack is the rule rather than the exception in Trump's inner circle. Many of the most influential people in the Trump administration have pre-service financial entanglements with Qatar. The US magazine Newsweek reported that, in addition to Trump himself, five major Trump administration officials have financial ties to Qatar: Chief-of-Staff Susie Wiles, FBI Director Kash Patel; Attorney General Pam Bondi; Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff; and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin. Democrats remain up-in-arms over Trump's acceptance of a $400 million jet from Qatar, alleging it amounts to a bribe; given Republican concern that a desire to influence motivates the $20 billion in assistance that Qatar provides American universities, it is hard to deny that Qatari money is not altruistic. For almost a quarter century, successive American presidents have cultivated relations with India. The development of US-India ties has coincided with perhaps the most contentious period in US foreign policy since the debate between isolationists and internationalists in the 1930s. Israel, Russia, NATO, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China each became political footballs. India, however, stood out as a rare example of bipartisanship. Every US president from George W Bush to Joe Biden worked to cultivate US-India ties. That commitment to a US-India partnership included Trump, at least in his first term. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In his second term, Trump has staked out an opposite position. He approached Pakistani terrorism and its Indian victims with moral equivalency and even dined with Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir, mastermind of the Pahalgam massacre, at the White House. Just as intelligence operatives recruit and compromise targets with either blackmail, bribes, or buffeting ego, so too did Islamabad handle Trump, telling him how much he deserved a Nobel Prize and entrancing Trump with notions of gas deals. The numbers do not lie. On July 31, 2025, Trump slapped 25 per cent sanctions on India, greater than Pakistan (19 per cent), Bangladesh (20 per cent), Sri Lanka (20 per cent), and Afghanistan (15 per cent). Trump treats India with disdain, belittling its economy and privileging countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka that are Chinese satrapies and Bangladesh and Afghanistan that are hubs for Islamist terror. Each of those countries to which Trump offers better terms ranks well below India on Transparency International's annual corruption index. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is no proof that Pakistan, Qatar, or Turkey bribed Trump, though a commonality of Trump's two terms is the conflict of interest between public policy and personal business. Trump's reference to gas deals with Pakistan, his Qatari involvement, and his and Barrack's repeated endorsements of Turkish President Recep Erdogan are coincidences that no Indian should ignore, especially given the coincidences, Trump's policy choices, and the lack of any other logical policy-driven explanation. India must respond in the only way Trump will understand, by denying opportunities to American businesses until Trump or his successors change US policy and again ground it in a partnership of democracies and consensus against terrorism rather than a partnership with corrupt, terror-sponsoring dictatorships. Here, India's decision to abandon the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter makes sense. The US defence industry purposely spreads itself across states and Congressional districts in order to immunise itself from cutbacks by ensuring it always has several dozen, if not hundreds, of lawmakers willing to protect the corporate interest for the sake of their employees. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to the Congressional Research Service, F-35 components are produced across 250 different districts in 45 US states. The same pattern holds true with other platforms that the United States would like to sell to India. Cutting contracts makes single headlines, but sending diplomats to each Congressional district to explain why New Delhi made its decision will augment pressure on Trump, especially as midterm elections loom. Trump might even reverse course. While some politicians double down to save face, Trump knows no shame, and if the pressure is great enough, he might simply change policy and try to scrub his recent past in an Orwellian frenzy of sycophantic press and statements. This still leaves India with a problem in the short term: Given the threat China poses to India, some Indian politicians may wish to replace the F-35 with Russia's fifth-generation Sukhoi-57E; this would be a mistake, given Russia's failure to honour previous contracts. Rather, India might shift toward European aircraft until such a time that Trump departs and the United States can right its present wrongs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Even if New Delhi abandons Lockheed Martin because Trump's antics have raised questions about American reliability, such systems represent not only a lethal combat platform but also a decades-long partnership of training and maintenance. Whatever animus New Delhi might have toward Washington, the long-term stability of Moscow remains a bad bet given the political vacuum that will develop after Putin's death. Trump treats India unfairly, but Trump is an old and, frankly, corrupt man whose time is limited. India will soon be the world's third largest economy; Trump's failure to recognise the benefits of that and the wisdom of choosing democracies over dictatorships and kleptocracies is America's loss. The current crisis, though, can be the stress test to prove the strength of US-India ties. Trump can become the exception that proves the rule. The US Congress still favours India over Pakistan, and every politician motivated more by national security than side business deals will remember which country sheltered Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and which country will drive the international economy through the 21st century. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bribery can never provide a solid base for bilateral ties like democracy and mutual interests do. Pakistan, like Turkey, will ultimately fall into the dustbin of past American partners no longer worth a future administration's time and energy. India must fight back but should not go scorched earth out of animus toward a man for whom the curtain of power is already closing. Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.
