Details Buried In Recently Declassified Docs Further Implicate Obama In Russia Hoax
The HPSCI report proves indispensable for understanding what supposed intel Obama withheld from the intelligence community under the guise of executive privilege.The HPSCI report proves indispensable for understanding what supposed intel Obama withheld from the intelligence community under the guise of executive privilege.Hang ’em high? Gabbard’s docs could rock DC to the core
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — one of the few people in Washington who still seems to believe public service means serving the public — has ignited a political firestorm with her latest move. In a stunning act of transparency and defiance, Gabbard declassified over 100 pages of intelligence documents she claims expose a “treasonous conspiracy” orchestrated by senior Obama-era officials to fabricate the false appearance that Russia helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.
Not only did she release these documents publicly, but she also referred the matter to the FBI and Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Her list of alleged conspirators includes former President Barack Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
If the Justice Department doesn’t act, the deep state will be confirmed — not as a 'conspiracy theory,' but as a fact.
Gabbard says the documents prove what many Americans have suspected for years: The entire Russia collusion narrative was not only false but knowingly manufactured and politically weaponized. She claims the declassified assessments directly contradict the official narrative, showing analysts concluded Russia had neither intent nor capability to sway the election.
Instead, Gabbard says Obama and his top advisers cherry-picked and distorted intelligence to craft a narrative that could undermine Trump’s presidency before it began. That narrative, of course, fueled the Mueller probe, impeachments, FISA warrants, and years of media hysteria.
The significance of Gabbard’s referral can’t be overstated. It’s not just a political gesture — she’s handing real evidence to prosecutors and demanding real consequences. While most of D.C. hides behind process and posturing, Gabbard is doing what Congress refused to do: treat treason like treason.
She’s one of the only officials in Washington doing her job, regardless of party or personality. In Gabbard’s eyes, the rule of law applies to everyone.
Whether the Justice Department takes up the referral remains to be seen. The agency has confirmed receipt and reportedly assembled an internal strike force to assess the claims. That’s a notable development. But considering the department’s track record, expectations remain low. Many believe the department prioritizes preserving the status quo over seeking justice. If past trends hold, the smart money says they’ll delay, deflect, and ultimately decline to prosecute — and that outcome, by itself, would be a great shame.
‘People want hangings’
I stopped by the Morning Glory Café in Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, on Thursday morning and struck up a conversation with the breakfast-counter regulars. Their reactions tell you everything you need to know about where the American people stand.
Betty K., retired schoolteacher: “Tulsi’s actually standing up to the swamp — for once. Americans deserve real justice, not cover-ups.”
Bob H., small-business owner: “If Hillary, Obama, Brennan really did conspire, then yes — charge them. No one can be above the law.”
Cindy M., nurse: “This is gut-wrenching. ... Our intelligence agencies turned on us. Gabbard is the first one who seems to want justice.”
A woman eating beside her husband, who asked to remain unnamed: “People want hangings.”
She didn’t flinch — and neither did anyone else.
RELATED: If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
If this referral results in prosecutions, the consequences would be seismic: potential prison time, disgrace, and the end of political legacies. More importantly, it would send a chilling message to every bureaucrat and agency head: Abuse of state power and election interference will not be tolerated. It could begin to restore the fractured trust between the American people and their government — with one critical truth: No one, not even a president, is above the law.
If the Justice Department does nothing, then the opposite truth becomes undeniable: that intelligence agencies have become untouchable; that the deep state protects its own; that the law applies only to the powerless.
Our government would be confirmed as a hollow shell, run by unelected bureaucrats and political fixers. We wouldn’t just be losing faith in the republic. We’d be living in a managed illusion, where facts are fungible and truth belongs to whoever controls the narrative.
Justice, not theater
Americans are fed up. They don’t want another committee. They don’t want another special counsel. They don’t want another round of political theater. They want justice — and they’re not wrong.
The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. It does not say, “unless your name is Obama.” And yet, here we are, watching the slow-motion erosion of our legal system while those entrusted to defend it look the other way.
Tulsi Gabbard just threw down the gauntlet. Now, we get to see who in this government still has a spine. If the Department of Justice acts, it’s the beginning of a reckoning. If it doesn’t, the deep state will be confirmed — not as a “conspiracy theory,” but as a fact.
And the people? They’ll take that truth with them — to the ballot box, to the streets, and to every café counter in America.
If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed evidence that the entire Russiagate hoax — a scheme to derail President Donald Trump’s first term — was manufactured by the outgoing Obama administration. At a press gaggle on Tuesday, Trump followed up by accusing Obama of “treason” for trying to rig the 2016 election and calling for severe consequences.
These revelations matter. But unless someone actually goes to jail, they won’t change anything.
MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free.
Democrats have shown they’re willing to jail political opponents — up to and including the president himself. Republicans, on the other hand, have proven utterly incapable of holding lawbreaking leftists accountable. Exposing treasonous acts is helpful, but if no one is punished, the corruption only deepens.
“Lock her up!” wasn’t just a chant at Trump rallies. MAGA supporters understood that the Clintons were deeply corrupt. They saw in Trump a candidate who might finally deliver justice. Elites gasped at the slogan, warning about the dangers of weaponizing the justice system. Then, with no sense of irony, they weaponized that very system against Trump to stop his re-election.
The lesson should have been obvious: Either cross the Rubicon, or don’t approach it at all. But don’t go fishing in it.
Americans are tired of watching the powerful get away with everything. In 2008, bankers crashed the economy and got bailed out. In 2020, Anthony Fauci and the biomedical regime imposed tyranny under the guise of public health. In 2020 and 2024, Joe Biden was propped up by a Democratic cabal that subverted the Constitution and jailed dissidents. The southern border was thrown open to reshape the electorate and lock in leftist power.
Kamala Harris nearly extended that reign — had she not turned out to be the dumbest, most tone-deaf, and most unlikable candidate ever smuggled onto a national ticket.
Yet through all of it, no one in power has paid a serious price for their crimes.
Major revelations come and go. But with no accountability, they become little more than distractions. There may have been a time when shame alone could bring a public reckoning — but our current ruling class is incapable of shame. They don’t resign in disgrace. They don’t retreat. They wait for the news cycle to move on.
The scandals pile up like grains of sand in a desert, each one indistinguishable from the next.
RELATED: Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world
In this environment, exposing corruption becomes just another way to tranquilize the public. People think, “At least the truth is out there — maybe voters will care.” But what if the scandal is about rigging the vote in the first place? If Democrats can open the border, fabricate intelligence, and collude with media to tip elections, then what good is the ballot box?
Exposure, without punishment, doesn’t deter. It emboldens.
The left doesn’t hesitate to jail its enemies. January 6 protesters were locked up for years — including some who never entered the Capitol. Trump officials like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were arrested and imprisoned. Pro-life activists got comically inflated sentences for silent protests. The FBI threatened parents who challenged school boards. Douglass Mackey was convicted for making memes. Trump himself faced fabricated charges that could’ve put him behind bars for life — all to stop his return.
So why are Republicans so cowardly?
If what Gabbard alleges is true, then Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe conspired to destroy the American electoral system. They manufactured intelligence for the express purpose of overturning a legitimate election.
That is treason, plain and simple.
If these people are allowed to walk, they’ll know they’re untouchable. And they’ll act like it. Again.
Trump seemed genuinely surprised and angered by the backlash to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files. Some speculated it was because Trump himself was implicated, but that was always unlikely. If real dirt on Trump existed, the people fabricating charges against him would’ve used it. Instead, Trump kept comparing Epstein to Russiagate — and now it’s obvious why.
RELATED: Why the Epstein story cannot be buried
He knew the Russiagate disclosures were about to drop and didn’t want them overshadowed by Epstein.
Still, the connection matters.
MAGA supporters were furious over how the Epstein case was handled because they’re sick of elites skating free. They’re sick of being ruled by people who break the law with impunity. Fauci. Epstein. The Clintons. Americans know they’re governed by some of the worst people on the planet, and they’re done pretending otherwise.
The country is crying out for justice.
But frankly, I don’t think the Trump administration will deliver it. I hope I’m wrong. But I doubt there will be any serious action taken against Obama or the rest of his old guard. Republicans talk tough but never follow through. Even after the left tried to jail and then attempted to assassinate the president, the GOP still wrings its hands over setting a bad precedent.
It’s a bad joke. And everyone knows it.
Revelations are fine. But none of this will matter until the Trump administration grows a spine and puts these people in prison where they belong.
Justice at last? Obama intel chiefs face fallout from Russia hoax
The FBI has launched a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for perjury and potentially other crimes related to the Trump-Russia hoax. This comes shortly after a CIA tradecraft review revealed their manipulation of a December 30, 2016, intelligence community assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump in the 2016 election. And on Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported that former President Barack Obama, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Brennan, and others participated in the deception.
The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the president from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people. ... As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.
In the words of President Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the chickens may be finally coming home to roost.
The report and documents issued by Gabbard demonstrate that the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia probably was not using cyber means to influence the election.
On December 9, 2016, Obama’s National Security Council principals, including Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and others, met to discuss Russia. After the meeting, Clapper directed an email to intelligence agency leaders, instructing them to work up an intelligence community assessment “per the president’s request” that detailed the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.”
The tradecraft review and the information released by Gabbard on Friday show a systematic breach of oath, duty, and honor by Barack Obama and the nation’s highest-ranking intelligence officials.
Even before the assessment began, Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets that the IC had “definitively concluded” that Russia had used cyber means to intervene in the election, specifically to help Trump win.
Responding to Gabbard, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, issued the following statement:
The years-long Russia investigation carried out by the Senate Intelligence Committee reaffirmed that the ‘Russian government directed extensive activity against US election infrastructure’ ahead of the 2016 election, and that it ‘used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign’ in order to benefit Donald Trump. This conclusion was supported on a unanimous basis by every single Democrat and Republican on the committee.
The rushed preparation of the intelligence community assessment ordered by Obama, conclusions reversing six months of intelligence analysis, and reliance on the discredited Steele dossier all suggest that Gabbard likely has the better of this argument, though calling the former Obama administration’s actions a “treasonous conspiracy” may be a step too far.
Setting the stage
John Brennan served as Barack Obama’s CIA director from March 2013 until just before Trump took office in January 2017. Since leaving office, he has been an outspoken Trump critic. In October 2020, he was one of 51 intelligence analysts who signed the intentionally misleading letter that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Brennan and the other intelligence analysts used their training in deception to trick American voters just before the 2020 presidential election. As many signatories were aware at the time, the FBI had already vetted the legitimacy of the laptop and its contents. The oblique allegation was intended to convey that its content was fake, while preserving the analysts’ ability to deny that was their conclusion.
The letter also gave the FBI cover to deny knowledge of the laptop, allowing it and other federal agencies to influence and coerce the media into suppressing coverage. Numerous surveys suggest that wider knowledge of Hunter’s laptop could have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, sparing America the Biden-Harris administration.
Three years later, when the FBI introduced the laptop into evidence in the Hunter Biden prosecution, it publicly confirmed that its contents were authentic. Asked how that squared with the analysts’ letter, Brennan disingenuously asserted they had never suggested the content was false, but merely observed there were similarities to a Russian intelligence operation.
Mirrors within mirrors. Just days after again taking office, Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance.
Brennan was just the beginning
Brennan wasn’t the only high-profile Obama appointee targeting Trump. Obama’s FBI director Comey and Director of National Intelligence Clapper were integral to the effort.
In mid-2016, Comey opened an FBI criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, at least partially motivated by the Steele dossier. No later than January 2017, the FBI knew that much of the information in the dossier was false. Shortly after, it learned the dossier was disinformation funded by the Clinton campaign using the law firm Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS as cutouts to engage the putative author, erstwhile British spy Christopher Steele.
At the start of the first Trump administration, Comey apparently lied to Trump and then misled congressional committees by denying he was under investigation. On March 20, 2017, he finally revealed the FBI investigation to the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department’s inspector general and special counsel John Durham criticized Comey’s handling of these matters, and, as a result of Durham’s investigation, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to falsifying information in a surveillance warrant request targeting Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
They quickly learned the dossier was disinformation funded by the Clinton campaign to engage the putative author, erstwhile British spy Christopher Steele.
When Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, Comey retaliated by disclosing confidential information, depicting Trump in an unfavorable light, to Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman for delivery to the press. Comey became a Trump critic only somewhat less vitriolic than Brennan. Trump then revoked Comey’s security clearance.
Though Democrats and the media have savaged the criminal investigation of Brennan and Comey as political retribution, it’s evident — while in their Obama-appointed positions atop the world’s premier law enforcement and espionage agencies — they broke their oaths, exceeded their authority, ignored the Constitution, and investigated, harassed, and sought to prosecute Trump and his campaign team for their opposition to the deep state. Both lied in testimony to congressional committees about the status, origins, process, and findings of the FBI investigation and related intelligence community activities.
Shattering norms
When, just six weeks before the end of his term, Obama ordered the intelligence community to prepare a predetermined assessment of Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 campaign, the CIA completed the effort in just one week, over the Christmas holiday. The IC assessment concluded with “high confidence” that Russia sought to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Analysts buckled to pressure and included the claim that Putin “aspired” to help then-candidate Trump win the election but applied the reduced “moderate confidence” standard to that inference.
The CIA’s Directorate of Analysis routinely conducts internal after-action reviews of its work on controversial and high-profile intelligence topics, but no review was conducted after the intelligence community assessment’s publication, because it was considered “too politically sensitive,” according to analysts involved in the process.
Current Trump-appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe rectified that failure two months ago, ordering the Directorate of Analysis to undertake a tradecraft review of the ICA. The review shed considerable light on the politicization of the intelligence community at the behest of Obama, Clapper, and Brennen — and the likelihood that agency heads repeatedly perjured themselves in congressional testimony. It also provides a view into the tortured abuse of facts that undergirds the lawfare waged against Trump by the Biden-Harris administration and Democratic prosecutors.
RELATED: Bombshell documents referred to DOJ expose Obama’s direct role in Russia hoax
The tradecraft review concluded that the intelligence community generally — and the CIA specifically — violated norms for the development, drafting, and issuance of similar assessments. Work that usually occurs over many months was compressed into one holiday week, during which the agency heads were unusually and intensely involved in drafting the IC assessment in a “chaotic,” “atypical,” and “markedly unconventional” process. Strict compartmentalization prevented team members from accessing the information required to evaluate the proposed findings.
The conclusion that Putin “aspired” to help Trump win was largely based on one classified CIA report that Brennan refused to share with most team members. From the outset, Brennan and Clapper excluded the National Intelligence Council. In his book “Undaunted,” Brennan acknowledges that the agency heads and Obama White House agreed on this process prior to initiating the assessment.
The tradecraft review noted:
The decision by agency heads to include the Steele dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment. ... FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the dossier’s inclusion and, over the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave references to it throughout the main body of the ICA.
The IC assessment authors and multiple senior CIA managers — including the two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia — strongly opposed including the dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards. The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned in an email to Brennan that including it in any form risked “the credibility of the entire paper.”
The review shed considerable light on the politicization of the intelligence community at the behest of Obama, Clapper, and Brennan.
Brennan overruled their objections, insisting that narrative consistency was more important than accuracy. As the tradecraft review explained:
Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by the two mission center leaders — one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background — he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns.
Brennan issued written instructions to include the Steele dossier in the report. A summary was attached as an appendix, though it was expressly referenced in the main body of the intelligence community only once.
The tradecraft review determined that the intelligence community assessment not only relied on information from the problematic Steele dossier, but excluded “credibly sourced” differing reports.
Brennan’s perjury?
Contrary to the intelligence community’s assessment and Brennan’s written instructions to its authors, Brennan claimed in congressional testimony under oath on May 23, 2017, that the Steele dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.”
In January 2017, the Office of National Intelligence issued a statement from Clapper that “we did not rely upon [the dossier] in any way for our conclusions.” Several months later, Clapper assured Congress the dossier was “not a formal part of the intelligence community assessment.”
More recently, during a May 2023 House Judiciary Committee interview, Brennan asserted that “the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment.” Though Brennan was apparently the intelligence community assessment’s architect and gave specific instructions to use the Steele dossier, he testified he was “not involved in analyzing the dossier at all.”
Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations reported that Clapper swore in the same May 2023 House Judiciary Committee interview that the Steele dossier was not used “in” the intelligence community assessment or “for” the intelligence community assessment, and the team “didn’t draw on it.”
The tradecraft review and the information released by Gabbard on Friday show a systematic breach of oath, duty, and honor by Barack Obama and the nation’s highest-ranking intelligence officials.
The statute of limitations has likely run out on the initial wrongdoing and most efforts to cover it up, though not the 2023 testimony. A congressional investigation should bring clarity to the American public, while the FBI focuses on prosecutable crimes.
The standards for perjury should be those applied to former White House strategy chief Steve Bannon and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, both of whom were prosecuted and imprisoned for their testimony before congressional committees. To the extent other wrongdoing can be prosecuted, the standards should be those applied to senior government officials who betrayed their oaths in an effort to subvert the country.
Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.
From Obama to CNN: How the liberal media helped facilitate the 'treasonous conspiracy' about Russian collusion
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released a treasure trove of evidence revealing how former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet members had, as many long suspected, apparently "manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump."
Both before and after the 2016 election, the understanding among intelligence officials appears to have been that Russia had likely not interfered, particularly by using cyber means, to influence the outcome.
Gabbard revealed, however, that before this conclusion could be delivered to the American public, the Obama White House seemingly intervened to set an alternative narrative — a narrative largely based on the Steele dossier, a political opposition research report paid for in part by the Clinton campaign, which the intelligence community knew to be devoid of credibility.
'They weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.'
This false narrative, which was initially fed piecemeal through leaks to the liberal media and then officially advanced through a reworked intelligence assessment published on Jan. 6, 2017, served "as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened U.S.-Russia tensions, and more," Gabbard said.
The success of what Gabbard characterized as a "treasonous conspiracy" was largely reliant on the participation of the liberal media, whose assistance took on various forms but in some cases was as simple as framing unnamed partisan sources from the previous administration not only as credible but noble.
For instance, in March 2017, the New York Times explained away Obama officials' eagerness to push the Russian collusion narrative before President Donald Trump took office not as an attempt to "make an excuse for their own defeat in the election," as then-White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, but rather as a heroic effort to protect legitimate intelligence from obfuscation or destruction:
Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration. At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump's statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
This explanation was followed paragraphs later by the claim that Obama directed none of the efforts.
One month prior, Trump — whose transition team emphasized early on that the intelligence agencies alleging Russian interference were "the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" — called the Russia narrative a "scam."
"You can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it," Trump said during a Feb. 16, 2017, press conference. "In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call."
The Poynter Institute's PolitiFact, among the publications that made good use of the reworked intelligence assessment, leaned on the apparently Obama-skewed document when insinuating that Trump's remarks at the press conference were false.
The Washington Post, which was among the biggest media proponents of the hoax, readily and routinely leaned on the input and framing of fierce Trump critics, including those apparently involved in the manufacture of the Russian collusion hoax, such as ex-CIA Director John Brennan.
In its long-standing effort to portray Trump as guilty and defensive, the paper also tracked how many times the president and those in the White House denied Russian collusion.
'The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.'
Unhinged Trump critics such as Anne Applebaum, the writer who smeared as propagandists early proponents of the pandemic lab-leak theory and wasted ink last year imagining parallels between Trump and various 20th-century dictators, kept Washington Post readers' hope alive that they were getting closer to "direct evidence" of collusion, while over at CNN commentators worked as if it there were proof that Russia interfered to get Trump elected.
Former CNN editor at large Chris Cillizza suggested in a 2018 piece that Trump's refusal to play along with the hoax was a likely sign that Moscow had compromising information on the president. This, for Cillizza, made more sense than the notion "in Trump's mind [that] any talk of Russian interference in the election is an attempt to undermine the 'brilliant campaign' (his words) he ran in 2016 and somehow invalidate his victory."
Days later, CNN's Marshall Cohen identified "10 ways Trump has strayed from his own intelligence agencies on Russian meddling" — a piece that now serves to memorialize the media's misplaced faith in the intelligence community and to vindicate Trump's skepticism.
While the newly released documents from the DNI both salt the remains of the Russian collusion hoax and justify Trump's use of the term "fake news" in reference to numerous publications, the documents could prove far more impactful for those who constructed the false narrative. After all, Gabbard referred the documents to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
"These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate," Gabbard wrote.
The director of national intelligence added, "The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!Obama’s ODNI Scuttled Intelligence Briefing To Preserve Russia-Collusion Hoax
Thanks to Director Gabbard, we know more about the depth of the conspiracy.ODNI Task Force To Interview Whistleblowers, Probe Election Vulnerabilities In Expansive Weaponization Inquiry
A task force launched by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to probe the weaponization of America’s intel apparatus is expanding its efforts to include interviewing agency whistleblowers and investigating election infrastructure vulnerabilities, The Federalist has learned. According to an ODNI official, the Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG) is seeking to interview whistleblowers within […]Vindicated? Patel's FBI uncovers apparent Chinese communist plot to rig 2020 mail-in vote for Biden
In a New York Times magazine interview published on June 1, 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr acknowledged that the Department of Justice was concerned that "there are a number of foreign countries that could easily make counterfeit ballots, put names on them, send them in."
Weeks later, President Donald Trump tweeted: "RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!"
Election officials, Democrats, and the liberal media were quick to suggest that such claims weren't just "unfounded" — they were "preposterous."
Like the American liberal establishment, these strategic dismissals have not aged well.
FBI Director Kash Patel announced Monday that the bureau located intelligence reports from August 2020 that detail "alarming allegations" regarding an apparent Chinese communist plot to interfere in the presidential election for the benefit of then-candidate Joe Biden.
Nearly as damning as the allegations was their alleged cover-up by elements of the intelligence community ahead of the election.
Patel told Just the News that the newly declassified documents "include allegations of plans from the [Chinese Communist Party] to manufacture fake driver's licenses and ship them into the United States for the purpose of facilitating fraudulent mail-in ballots — allegations which, while substantiated, were abruptly recalled and never disclosed to the public."
U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced on July 27, 2020, that between Jan. 1 and June 30 of that election year, CBP officers at the International Mail Facility at Chicago O'Hare International Airport had seized 1,513 shipments containing fraudulent documents, including 19,888 counterfeit U.S. drivers' licenses.
"The majority of these shipments were arriving from China and Hong Kong, with other seized shipments arriving from Great Britain and South Korea," noted CBP.
The licenses were mostly intended for college-age students across various states. In many cases, the barcode attached to the licenses actually worked. It's unclear whether some of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese students at universities across the country or some of the nearly 400,000 Chinese illegal aliens were the intended recipients.
"These fraudulent identity documents can lead to identity theft, worksite enforcement, critical infrastructure protection, fraud linked to immigration-related crimes such as human smuggling and human trafficking, and these documents can be used by those individuals associated with terrorism to minimize scrutiny from travel screening measures," added CBP.
Officials who have seen the newly declassified documents told Just the News that a confidential source provided the FBI with information in summer 2020 indicating that the Chinese communist regime was mass-producing fake American drivers' licenses in order to create voter identities for Chinese nationals so that they could vote with fake mail-in ballots.
The goal was apparently to help Biden beat Trump.
An intelligence official indicated that despite the gravity of the allegations, the intel report was recalled after just a few weeks and the allegations never fully explored.
'It was a deliberate effort by the Intelligence Community to hide these facts from the public.'
The reason given was that the confidential source needed to be re-interviewed. However, it appears politics may have informed the decision.
The intelligence community's then-analytic ombudsman Barry Zulauf indicated in a report on a number of election security intelligence issues that "China analysts appeared hesitant to assess Chinese actions as undue influence or interference. These analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tended to disagree with the [Trump] Administration's policies, saying in effect, 'I don't want our intelligence used to support those policies.'"
RELATED: China is winning the Cold War 2.0 ... and we’re letting it happen
In a Jan. 7, 2021, memo, then-DNI and current CIA Director John Ratcliffe directed the attention of senators on the Select Committee on Intelligence to how the ombudsman found that "CIA Management took actions 'pressuring [analysts] to withdraw their support' from the alternative viewpoint on China 'in an attempt to suppress it. This was seen by National Intelligence Officers as politicization,’ and I agree.”
Ratcliffe went on to defend Christopher Porter — the former national intelligence officer for cyber at the National Intelligence Council, who led the U.S. intelligence community's analysis of threats to American elections — for refusing to back down from flagging the threat of Chinese election interference. Contrary to the supposed majority view, Porter apparently maintained that “China took at least some steps to undermine former President Trump’s reelection chances.”
Porter, who expressed his gratitude on Tuesday that Patel "is standing up for the truth senior Intelligence Community leaders conspired to hide,” claimed that the CIA and senior leadership at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence harassed him and drove him out of the building when he said that China had interfered in 2020.
"Just remember, this wasn’t an oversight: it was a deliberate effort by the Intelligence Community to hide these facts from the public so President Trump couldn’t defend his campaign for reelection," added Porter.
The ombudsman took pains to explain that "due to varying collection and insight into hostile state actors’ leadership intentions and domestic election influence campaigns, the definitional use of the terms 'influence' and 'interference' and associated confidence levels are applied differently by the China and Russia analytic communities.”
RELATED: Chinese official avows Beijing is behind cyberattacks on US, identifies motive: Report
Zulauf suggested further that the difference in application of these analytic terms led to "differences in the volume, frequency, and confidence levels of the intelligence coming from the China and Russia analytic communities," though they were "very similar in their potential effects."
In his report, Zulauf found that "there were attempts to politicize intelligence."
Zulauf referred to several examples, "the most egregious" of which was delivered by National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director Bill Evanina on March 10, 2020. Evanina delivered remarks that were construed as the opinion of the IC, yet analysts called the introductory statement and talking points a “gross misinterpretation” of the IC’s views.
The ombudsman also highlighted “what appears to be politically motivated editing” of a May 2020 National Intelligence Council Memo in what he described as one example of “the overall pattern of perceived politicization.”
Then-National Intelligence Chair Christopher Kojm, who later ended up on Biden’s presidential transition Agency Review Team, “crafted the language” of the memo, which reportedly “led with intelligence gaps and ‘buried the lead’ regarding what the IC does know about election security threats.”
“The result was a final product whose delayed publication meant it diverged sharply from the up-to-date IC view communicated in other product lines,” wrote Zulauf. “I have e-mail exchanges to document this delay, allusions to political repercussions, and frustration from intelligence professionals with the delay.”
“NIC officials pointed to ODNI senior officials as intervening in the changes to conclusions, saying that they were overly sensitive to political customers who saw the dissonance between China and Russia reporting and the inconsistent application of definitions,” added Zulauf.
The alleged cover-up of the Chinese election fraud plot appears to be par for the course within what the ombudsman referred to as this “hyper partisan state” of play.
It appears this narrative curation ultimately proved successful.
In March 2021, the National Intelligence Council released an assessment report stating with high confidence that “China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election.”
'They should be investigating and getting this ready for prosecution.'
The report noted further that the intelligence community had “no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results.”
Patel told Just the News he declassified the intel documents pertaining to the August 2020 intel report and provided them to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for further review.
The news of the documents’ location and declassification was well received by a number of Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Ana Paulina Luna (Fla.), who stated, “America needs to wake up. Trump is NOT the enemy, it’s the CCP.”
Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, suggested to Blaze News that “a limited disclosure to Congress is not sufficient.”
“They’re the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” continued Howell. “They should be investigating and getting this ready for prosecution.”
Blaze News reached out to the ODNI and the White House but did not immediately receive responses. When pressed for comment, the FBI referred Blaze News to Patel's post on X.
Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
ODNI Report On Corruption Exposes Embarrassing Weaknesses In China’s Regime
The release of a crucial ODNI report is likely to elicit a strong response from Xi, as the report reveals embarrassing information.How the National Intelligence University became a diploma mill for intel amateurs
The National Intelligence University, a kludge organization masquerading as an institution of higher learning, is likely the organization that seeded some of the bozos over at National Security Agency who were busy sexting instead of decrypting. As all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies send their mid-career personnel (civilian and military both) to NIU for continuing education, you can bet that at least some of the chief exporters of the extremist DEI nonsense that took hold at NSA and elsewhere were graduates of NIU.
The Department of Government Efficiency should pay a visit to the NIU campus (really just one building) in Bethesda, Maryland. The institution needs a thorough review — not necessarily to eliminate it but to scale back its most ineffective parts and personnel. The goal should be to restore the focus on meaningful instruction and improve the quality of its graduates.
NIU is as dysfunctional as the broader American higher education system — and for the same reasons. It doesn’t have to be this way.
NIU’s executive vice president, Patricia A. Larsen,has aggressively expanded DEI initiatives while neglecting common sense and academic rigor. Her approach puts the sensitivity of students over effective instruction, often at the expense of the faculty and staff. God forbid that any instruction ruffle the feathers of our delicate and sensitive intelligence community students! As a result, the quality of both incoming intelligence personnel and graduating students has declined sharply.
Since 1992, I have lectured at NIU and its predecessor organizations — the Defense Intelligence College, the Joint Military Intelligence College, and later the National Defense Intelligence College. Over the years, I have witnessed a significant drop in the quality of students and their academic preparedness.
Since 2021, when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence took control of the university, the institution has adopted an inflated sense of its own importance (doubtless with some input from the CIA). The ODNI lacked a clear plan for the university and had little understanding of its curriculum. This mismanagement, combined with a shift toward imitating civilian higher education practices, has severely undermined NIU’s standards.
Now, it wants to emulate prestigious schools like Harvard or Virginia Tech, but, in reality, it more closely resembles a military staff school or community college.
NIU’s current approach includes lax, student-centered learning policies that allow students to influence what is taught. Admission standards have dropped sharply — the university no longer requires GRE scores and accepts nearly everyone who applies. Many students and graduates struggle with basic writing skills, such as forming coherent sentences with proper subject-verb agreement. Grade inflation is rampant, with 4.0 GPAs now the norm.
Today, NIU attracts government edu-crats who rely on PowerPoint slides rather than effective teaching methods. It has also become a degree mill for students who lack writing and reasoning skills. In the past, I reviewed their unclassified theses and papers, which often consisted of fragmented sentences on slides written in text-message shorthand — hardly graduate-level work.
The university’s staff has also grown bloated, consisting mostly of non-teaching personnel who try to mimic large state universities. This is absurd given that NIU’s student body is smaller than that of many medium-sized high schools. Entire departments contribute nothing to the university’s core mission: providing high-quality, graduate-level education in strategic intelligence.
Worse, management at NIU has long focused on increasing the number of graduates, regardless of their competence, instead of producing fewer but better-prepared intelligence professionals. A search of the public course catalog reveals no instruction in ethics. The emphasis on quantity over quality risks corrupting the entire intelligence community.
This lack of standards may help explain why the intelligence community includes hundreds of people like those Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired last week from the National Security Agency for using classified systems to exchange lewd and obscene messages. If NIU enforced higher standards in reading, writing, reasoning, and ethics, it might produce graduates with the integrity, discipline, and dedication that once defined both military officers and intelligence personnel. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case today.
As a result, NIU is as dysfunctional as the broader American higher education system — and for the same reasons. It doesn’t have to be this way.
The DOGE and Gabbard must take decisive action to clean up the NIU. After Gabbard’s swift move to fire the NSA employees involved in misconduct, it’s clear that bold steps can yield results.
To prevent further decline in the intelligence community, the DOGE and Gabbard should conduct a thorough review and eliminate unnecessary activities and staff positions that do not directly contribute to effective teaching. NIU’s focus must return to preparing the next generation of intelligence professionals with the skills needed for the art and craft of intelligence work.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com