Sponsor Advertisement
Declassified Documents Allege Obama-Clinton Scheme to Undermine Trump

Declassified Documents Allege Obama-Clinton Scheme to Undermine Trump

Recently declassified documents suggest a conspiracy by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and Obama administration officials to fabricate a Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The release by DNI Tulsi Gabbard has sparked calls for justice and accountability.

Newly declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have rocked the political landscape in Washington, D.C. The papers allege a calculated scheme by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, in collaboration with senior officials from the Obama administration, to concoct and propagate a narrative of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. The release, which occurred last Friday, encompasses over 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal reports.

The documents unveil whistleblower testimony from within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), inter-agency communications, and internal intelligence assessments. Gabbard has characterized the findings as "overwhelming evidence" of an orchestrated effort to undermine and delegitimize the legitimacy of then-candidate and subsequent President Donald Trump.

According to the declassified material, there was a long-term operation by the Clinton campaign and key figures within the Obama White House to falsely associate Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Whistleblowers have come forward alleging that intelligence officials were coerced into aligning with a politically motivated narrative.

Named in the documents are high-profile individuals including former President Barack Obama, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Clinton campaign aides are also mentioned as having allegedly worked in close conjunction with these officials around mid-2016.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry, citing internal communications, reported that Clinton campaign staff had direct contact with officials inside the Obama administration to generate incriminating evidence tying Trump to Russia. Sperry shared on social media, "I’m told there are texts/emails indicating Hillary Clinton campaign aides directly coordinated with the Obama White House, NSC, State Dept, and Intelligence Community officials in efforts to dig up dirt tying Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin in July 2016 …developing…"

The documents further include assessments from intelligence agencies that contradict claims made by the Intelligence Community in early 2017. A September 12, 2016, Intelligence Community Assessment stated that foreign adversaries likely lacked the capabilities to execute widespread, undetected cyberattacks on U.S. election infrastructure. An additional report from Clapper's office on December 7, 2016, supported this conclusion, finding no evidence of foreign interference that altered the presidential election outcome.

However, just two days after this report, President Obama convened a meeting with key national security and intelligence officials to launch a new probe into "Russian Election Meddling." This meeting, which included Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Kerry, Lynch, and other senior aides, ultimately led to the development of the January 7, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that asserted Russia interfered in the election to benefit Donald Trump. Gabbard asserts that this assessment reversed the earlier findings and relied heavily on uncorroborated intelligence, including the now-discredited Steele dossier.

A whistleblower from the ODNI, who was involved in the 2016 assessments, expressed that they felt pressured to support the revised 2017 ICA. The whistleblower's statement read, "As for the 2017 ICA’s judgement of a decisive Russian preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, I could not concur in good conscience based on information available, and my professional analytic judgement." The whistleblower also mentioned being urged by their superior to trust material that was not transparently shared with analysts, which is believed to include the Steele dossier.

Gabbard has highlighted that the revelations in the declassified documents indicate a deliberate attempt to deceive the American populace, sway public opinion, and misuse the intelligence community for political ends. She stated, "We have whistleblowers, actually, coming forward now after we released these documents because there are people who were around, who were working within the intelligence community at this time who were so disgusted by what happened."

Gabbard is pushing for justice, stating, "They… want to see justice delivered… there must be indictments. Those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time, no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people, they all must be held accountable." She has announced plans to refer the matter to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a criminal investigation, emphasizing that the scheme represents not just a political betrayal but a fundamental betrayal of the intelligence community's core mission.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

From a progressive standpoint, the release of these documents by DNI Tulsi Gabbard raises serious concerns about the integrity of political processes and the use of intelligence in partisan warfare. While progressives are often critical of President Trump's policies and conduct, the idea that intelligence agencies could be manipulated for political gain is troubling to all who value democracy and the rule of law.

Progressives advocate for a thorough and unbiased investigation into the allegations. If misconduct occurred, it should be addressed with full respect for legal and ethical standards. The progressive viewpoint stresses that the principles of justice and accountability must be upheld, irrespective of party affiliation.

Additionally, progressives emphasize the need for reforms to prevent the politicization of intelligence. Safeguards should be in place to ensure that intelligence assessments are based on facts and not influenced by political agendas. This includes protecting whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing, as their role is essential in maintaining government accountability.

The progressive narrative also acknowledges the importance of confronting foreign interference in elections but insists that

Conservative View

The declassification of these documents by DNI Tulsi Gabbard has brought to light what many conservatives have long suspected: a deep-seated plot to sabotage President Trump's campaign and presidency. The involvement of high-ranking officials from the Obama administration in allegedly fabricating a narrative of collusion with Russia is a stark reminder of the potential for political weaponization of intelligence agencies.

The conservative viewpoint emphasizes the need for accountability and justice. The actions described in these documents, if proven true, represent a grave assault on the democratic process and the principle of fair play in politics. The alleged misuse of intelligence for political purposes is an affront to the American people and the rule of law.

Furthermore, the conservative perspective underscores the importance of transparency within government institutions. The whistleblowers' courage in coming forward signifies a critical check on government overreach and highlights the necessity for whistleblowers' protection. It is imperative that those involved face the consequences of their actions, regardless of their political standing or past positions of power.

The conservative narrative also points to the media's role in perpetuating the Trump-Russia collusion story. There is a call for introspection within the media industry to prevent the dissemination of unverified information. This episode serves as a cautionary tale about the ramifications of biased reporting and its impact on public trust.

Common Ground

Areas of agreement between perspectives.