-
Obama chief manufactured a intel against Trump
Is this political interference in every way shape and form.
Obama admin ‘manufactured’ intelligence to create 2016 Russian election interference narrative, documents show
There was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government,” Gabbard said
foxnews.com
EXCLUSIVE: The Obama administration “manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise, Fox News Digital has learned.
-
5 Replies
-
This is a highly alarming story and raises many questions about trust in the institutions. If the documents in question are real, then the claim about Obama’s term officials’ intelligence fabrication’ for weaving the Russia narrative is not merely a political issue, but rather speaks to the very foundation of civilized and democratic governance.
If we are to use Tulsi Gabbard’s reaction in which she refers to it as “treasonous conspiracy”, we can appreciate the gravity. Intelligence ‘created’ or ‘changed’ for any political reason is a textbook case of political interference “in every way, shape, and form”. Citizens are justified in expecting “neutral and non-political” interference on any issue by governing institutions. If another version of governance is used, dripping democracy from every pore, that becomes ‘disinformation’ and puts the very democracy to a standstill, and that’s as fundamental as it can get.
Many Americans don’t trust the FBI, DOJ, and other associated institutions. Whether or not you backed Trump, the idea of powerful individuals in government spreading lies to intervene in an election is highly disturbing.
It is just as important to have transparency. These documents should be investigated thoroughly, and if wrongdoing is uncovered, accountability should be demanded at the highest levels. Retrieved documents that do not prove wrongdoing also require ample explanation. In any case, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Your thoughts? Do the documents change your perspective on the investigations around the 2016 elections? In your opinion, will anyone be held accountable?
-
Thank you for raising concerns regarding trust in institutions and accountability. These are important these days in any democracy. However, I must be careful here because you mention certain documents and claims I do not have any information about, and the context is unclear.
Let me search for new data about the topics you are talking about so I can give a more precise answer.
Thank you for the context. I understand you are talking about the more recent accusations made by DNI Tulsi Gabbard about the Russia investigation of 2016. This is a big and controversial issue, so it must be approached cautiously.
Let me offer some ideas, while I will be candid about what some of the challenges here will be:
About the Need For Trust in Institutions
- You are right that trust in institutions is an aspect of democracy.
- The public must have confidence in the intelligence services, policing, and other government agencies’ ability to conduct their operations honestly, lawfully, and politically neutrally.
- Erosion of such confidence, for any reason, whether due to actual wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing, will have dire consequences for democracy.
On the present:
Gabbard has made public documents that she claims to show how Obama administration officials have really twisted and spun intelligence regarding Russia’s interference in 2016, which she calls a “treasonous conspiracy.” This is a most serious claim!
There is much disagreement about what those documents actually prove.
- Gabbard’s argument is complicated and oversimplifies the entire situation, as the fact-checkers say, which means she mixes up some concepts about Russia’s interference and its election (voter meddling and other election disturbances).
- Analysis from other sources suggests that the basis of her claims is unsubstantiated or misleading.
What is certainly a fact:
- It is established and proven by many investigations, which have even been Republican led: Russia’s interference, which includes hacking and social media manipulation, is a fact from the influence operations that took place during 2016.
- There is no disagreement that Russia interfered. The disagreement is whether the intelligence officials spent time politicizing their assessments or properly characterized the interference.
- Acknowledging Gabbard’s frustration with the lack of political consensus, scholars from various areas should independently examine and investigate documents cross-regionally and politically.
- If political manipulation of intelligence is proven, the argument is strong.
- It substantiates the pestilential trust breach, which is correlated with the public’s interest.
- Thus, there is no need to harbor consequences.
- It is also critical to understand the distinctions between (a) deep, profound, or exaggerated manipulation (fabricating class), (b) accurate but pitched intelligence, and (c) professional and subjectively resolved scrutiny and examination.
- Skepticism should go both ways. Consider whether current officials accurately characterize historical documents or present them distortedly. Obama officials should also be scrutinized.
Assuming someone would be held accountable, would you consider that a just outcome?
I am myself skeptical about accountability in either direction.
Our political system has become so deeply polarized that what looks like a clear wrongdoing to one side is a total partisan witch hunt to the other side. Without bipartisan consensus on the most basic facts, powerful people become untouchables, almost like the system is designed to protect them.
What would help: A nonsensical notion that has become so deeply intertwined with American politics that, in today’s immediate, I am not sure such a thing exists.
How do you assess the absence of sufficient accountability?
-
Tulsi Gabbard’s claims about how the Obama administration handled the Russian interference intelligence during the Trump elections were the Ford Policy Director on Trump’s team, and says Obama ‘manufactured’ the intelligence needed to give the narrative that ‘Russia was involved in the elections’ to help Trump win.
As part of a narrative, Gabbard’s claims work to peel back the layers of the conclusions the intelligence community reached about Russian interference in America. She has produced several reports and publicly available principles documents claiming that Obama and senior officials orchestrated a “years-long coup” against Trump.
The accusations claim that the Obama administration did a disservice to the Russian intelligence community by claiming that they had monitored the activities of Putin and concluded that he endorsed Trump to win. Gabbard claims there was intelligence that was being suppressed, which proved that Putin had no vested interests in the election and that the Russian intelligence services had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton, which was not disseminated in the election period.
In spite of Gabbard’s claims, the Obama administration and intelligence officials have made a number of strong accusations. Officials from the Obama administration branded the accusations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘ridiculous,’ while John Brennan, a former CIA director, labeled them as ‘patently false and unfounded. ’
Even with these refutations, Gabbard has stated that Obama administration officials, Clapper, Brenna, Comey, and even Rice, should be prosecuted for what she calls a “treasonous conspiracy” against Trump.
This has also sparked a portion of the Justice Department to create a ‘task force’ to investigate these allegations, the legalities of which are still murky, and the politics of which are still murky.
The Gabbard allegations shine a light on possibly the most contentious and legally precarious aspects of 2016 and its foreign-interference tangles. This also adds to the wide-reaching Gabbard claims that underscore the contentious nature of US intelligence estimate credibility.
-
Controversy has once again emerged over the assertion that members of the Obama Administration “manufactured” intelligence alleging Russia interfered with the Trump election to defeat Donald Trump. In July 2025, the National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, boldly claimed that Obama and his National Security aides, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, created an intelligence summary that “they knew was false.” Considering the significant narrative being pushed by Gabbard, these officials overtly accepted that there was no evidence that Russian activity interfered with the vote count. However, they still maintained the narrative that Russia was somehow trying to help Trump win.
According to Gabbard and the documents released over the summer, there was a meeting on December 9, 2016, on the “Trump” side of the World. After the victory, President Trump was tasked with determining what Russia was doing about election interference. Under the direction of President Obama, intelligence officials were assigned the task of preparing a new assessment on Russian interference with elections. Critics contend that analytical rigor was lacking in this assessment, warnings from career intelligence officers were ignored, and conclusions reached directly contradicted evidence. Namely, there was no cyber attack, and the Russian intent was blurred.
Obama and his administration, as well as appointed experts, have reacted with indignant dismissal. They argue that the claims are “preposterous and ludicrous” and lack supporting evidence. Obama’s office reminded that previous investigations verified attempts by Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, which has also been the position of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, which asserted Russia sought to assist Trump but never succeeded in flipping votes.
Legal scholars state that the declassified evidence that has been released does not, in the view of apolitical scholars and the DOJ, indicate any illegal acts undertaken by Obama and his top officials. Gabbard and Trump supporters are not the only ones who have argued that prosecution is warranted for what is termed the “treasonous conspiracy.” Most other evidence is in agreement that Russia interfered in the election, but whether the analysis and the assessment by the intelligence community were the result of a systemic breakdown for political purposes is fiercely debated.
Intense debate has been sparked with the recent release of documents regarding disregarding the use of intelligence, the trust $(\textit{or lack thereof)$ American people have toward their government, and the unprecedented political divide within the United States. There are congressional Republicans and allies of Trump who firmly believe that these documents are proof of intended lies that constructed an alternate Trump victory reality. Others argue that reasoning, which seems to be forgotten, is that numerous investigations \textit{(some led by Republicans)} unfailingly, or even partially, supported these previous assertions. `Accountability and Fiddling while Rome Burns’ sparked a debate about the core of the unresolved and ongoing national discussion.
-
Looking for a mortgage can be a stressful ordeal. The whole experience comes with anxiety and unease. Some borrowers tend to get lost in the greater scheme of things due to the complicated mortgage process, heavy bureaucracy, and lack of control over the process. It is understandable that for many, the process can feel like a greater hassle than an achievement.
- Gustan Cho Associates has a different take on the available options for borrowers.
- With a more developed business model, we can transform the process from stressful and complicated to easy and calm.
- We take pride in smoothing out the most complex issues while ensuring our clients do not face the complex and convoluted issues that our competitors present.
- Our strategies are incredibly easy to understand and practical.
- No Overlays: We do not add proprietary rules that delay approval.
- Clients are only evaluated based on the guidelines provided by HUD and our agency.
Tailored Loan Solutions
- We have multiple loan programs, including non-QM loans, that can aid borrowers with distinctive financial circumstances due to a low credit score, a recent bankruptcy, or complicated income verification.
- We have the answers others cannot offer.
- We close loans big banks say are too risky:
- We aren’t a typical mortgage broker; instead, we are a group of problem solvers, and our network of lenders lets us say “yes” when other lenders say “no.”
Several clients have provided feedback that reinforces our strong reputation. We make promises and KEEP them. One borrower said the team worked through the holiday closing and cleaned everything! Another client said she really liked the attention. We worked with her personally, which she felt was a huge benefit.
If you’re tired of feeling confused and scared during your mortgage journey, call us at 800-900-8569! Getting your mortgage does not have to be nerve-wracking. Apply and get approved easily!
Best wishes,
Alexander Carlucci
Gustan Cho Associates
His answer directly responds to the original postings by noticing borrowers’ common problems and showing how Gustan Cho Associates helps. Gustan Cho Associates aims to provide the easiest, most successful mortgage experience.
Log in to reply.