Newly declassified documents produced by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reveal shocking truths about the so-called “Russiagate” collusion hoax. These records show Obama-era intelligence officials repeatedly contradicted their own internal assessments when spreading false claims about Russian cyberattacks impacting the 2016 election. A key December 2016 Presidential Daily Brief prepared for Obama explicitly stated that Russian hackers did not alter election outcomes or attack voting infrastructure—a direct clash with the later collusion narrative.
Gabbard’s release exposes how intelligence agencies suppressed critical information during the Clinton-Trump campaign. One suppressed finding revealed Russian intelligence possessed damaging material about Clinton’s health—which they chose not to leak—suggesting Putin preferred her as president despite mainstream media claims he wanted Trump to win. This undermines the Intelligence Community Assessment’s conclusion that Russia sought to boost Trump, a position even Senate Republicans later challenged.
The documents reveal a pattern of deception. While top Obama officials publicly pushed the collusion narrative, their own agencies privately assessed Russia’s focus was disturbing public perception—not election machinery. This distinction between cyber interference and information warfare was repeatedly blurred in public statements to fuel political agendas. Even the House Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report noted the ICA relied on thin evidence and ignored conflicting intelligence about Moscow’s true motives.
Conservative voices argue these revelations confirm the deep state’s role in perpetuating a false narrative to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. The documents prove intelligence officers manufactured claims to suit partisan goals, ignoring basic tradecraft standards when assessing Putin’s intentions. This reckless behavior eroded public trust in institutions while advancing baseless conspiracy theories about Trump’s campaign.
The Senate Intelligence Committee later affirmed Russia interfered to weaken Clinton, but Gabbard’s release shows how even that conclusion was reached through flagrantly flawed processes. Key analysts admitted their assessments rested on a single, unverified spy source—a clear violation of intelligence community protocols. Meanwhile, Durham’s investigation found no “smoking gun” evidence of high-level wrongdoing despite liberal promises of a Watergate-level scandal.
Critics warn this latest bombshell exposes systemic problems within agencies tasked with safeguarding national security. By prioritizing political agendas over factual accuracy, the intelligence community abandoned impartiality and empowered Russian disinformation campaigns in the long run. These documents demonstrate how entrenched bureaucrats attacked Trump while ignoring credible threats—a betrayal of their professional oath.
The implications are profound and contentious. Gabbard challenges the very foundation of the collusion narrative, framing it as a treasonous conspiracy rather than a legitimate security concern. While mainstream media downplays the revelations, conservatives argue they validate years of warnings about deep state overreach. The fallout threatens to reshape the national conversation about election integrity and intelligence agency reforms.
With fresh questions emerging about past and present Russian interference, Gabbard demands transparency—a value abandoned during the Obama-Biden years. Every patriotic American deserves honest answers about how their government weaponized false claims to manipulate public opinion. It’s time to hold swamp creatures accountable for their lies.
