Obamagate: An Intelligence Officer's Evaluation of Gabbard's 2016 "Treasonous Conspiracy" Claims

Just red meat for the MAGAverse? Or is there actually a there there?

[Author’s note: Once again, I will put on my ‘intelligence officer’ hat based on my time as a CIA officer and do my best to evaluate claims in an intelligence matter.]

Yesterday, Tulsi Gabbard took to X and made one of the most incendiary allegations of her political career: that President Obama and senior intelligence officials orchestrated a “treasonous conspiracy” to subvert the 2016 election and undermine Donald Trump’s presidency. Her post reads:

Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard)
July 17, 2025

“The truth is out. These newly declassified documents expose how Obama, Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others committed a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people and undermine our democracy by sabotaging Trump’s 2016 victory. They fabricated the ‘Russia collusion’ narrative, even though they had intelligence proving Russia had nothing to do with vote tampering or altering the outcome.

The American people must demand accountability. These individuals must be prosecuted. We are forwarding the evidence to the DOJ.”

The post linked to a lengthy press release which in turn linked to a 70-page batch of newly declassified intelligence documents from late 2016 and early 2017. Gabbard frames the material as definitive proof that the entire narrative of Russian interference was fabricated for political purposes — and that the Obama administration knew it.

But here’s the thing: that interpretation depends on a subtle but persistent manipulation of language. And once you strip that away and examine the documents on their own terms, the picture looks very different.

The Obfuscation at the Heart of Gabbard’s Argument

At the core of Gabbard’s claim is the idea that the intelligence community (IC) “knew” Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election, and that senior Obama-era officials — Obama, Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others — chose to fabricate a false narrative anyway.

But that sweeping claim only holds together if you ignore a critical distinction that Gabbard repeatedly blurs — and likely hopes her audience will blur with her.

There are two distinct categories of “Russian meddling” that were analyzed by the IC in the 2016 election:

1. Vote tampering — hacking into voting machines or databases, altering vote counts, or disrupting election infrastructure.

2. Influence operations — hacking and leaking emails, manipulating social media, spreading disinformation, and steering public perception.

The IC was always clear that vote tampering didn’t happen. But they were equally clear — beginning well before Election Day — that Russia was running a broad influence campaign designed to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Gabbard’s post and press release strategically conflate those two categories.

A Case Study in Manipulative Obfuscation

Here’s a line from her press release:

“In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) consistently assessed that Russia is ‘probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.’”

Sounds definitive, right? But she’s quoting — incompletely — from an August 2016 IC assessment. The full sentence reads:

“Russia is probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means — e.g., cyberattacks on infrastructure, vote tabulation, or direct interference with the voting process itself.”

In other words: the IC assessed that. Russia was not trying to hack the vote, and that’s precisely what they were talking about in that quote. But she appropriates the quote, drops the clarifying language at the end, and then cites it as if it was a conclusion that Russia was not trying to do any kind of influence. It didn’t say that at all, but she quotes it to make that point. To be absolutely clear — the quote she chose referred only to vote tampering, not influence of public opinion. Gabbard and her wordsmiths know this.

If she only did this once, that would be one thing. But she does it repeatedly. Throughout the press release and her public remarks, she repeats a subtle narrative sleight of hand: quoting “no meddling” conclusions that in actual fact refer narrowly to no meddling with vote tallies but falsely presenting them as though they cover the entire Russia story — including the well-documented voter influence operations.

What the Intelligence Community Actually Found

So what did the IC say in real time?

• Vote tampering: In both classified and public assessments issued in September and December 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded there was no evidence Russia had the capacity to, or in fact did, alter vote counts or hack election infrastructure.

• Voter influence operations: By contrast, as early as October 7, 2016, ODNI and DHS issued a joint statement publicly blaming the Russian government for hacking DNC and Clinton campaign emails. The stated goal: to interfere in the election and sow discord. This assessment was only strengthened in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded — with “high confidence” — that:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election… We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

This was not new or secret. It was published. Debated. Scrutinized. It was not fabricated and in fact it was confirmed over and over again from mulitple sources.

Stripping Away the Obfuscation: Is There Any “There” There?

Having laid bare the language manipulation that underpins Gabbard’s central claim, we stil should ask a more serious question:

Even if her framing is dishonest, do the documents she’s released show any improper behavior or troubling decision-making by senior officials?

If we are being rational and fact-driven, it’s important to evaluate the document trove and look for improper and/or illegal behavior by Obama officials. Do the documents show that?

What the Declassified Documents Show

1. Early skepticism about vote tampering:
   The documents contain multiple examples of IC analysts — especially at NSA and DIA — reaffirming that there was no evidence of direct Russian attacks on voting infrastructure. This part of the record is consistent with Gabbard's assertion, but so what? This was never in dispute. If Gabbard had just come out and said there was skepticism about vote tampering all along, it would not be news.

2. Internal friction over the ICA:
   There’s evidence that some analysts were uneasy with the process that led to the January 2017 ICA:

   • NSA staff expressed concern that the Steele dossier was being used as source material before it had been verified.

   • Some emails suggest the ICA’s conclusion — that Russia aimed to help Trump — was treated as a foregone conclusion, and dissenting views were not fully reflected.

   • An NSA staffer writes: “We’re being told this conclusion is baked, but our SIGINT doesn’t support it.”

   • COMMENT: This is a valid area for further inquiry, but again it’s not news. It’s well known that the rush to embrace the Steele dossier was not a shining moment for the Obama administration. At the same time the “trashing” of the Steele dossier ignores the fact that it was ultimately found to be about 80% accurate. But yes, there is room for criticism of the Steele dossier not going through a full vetting process before being used. This is not a coup, however, and it is not news.

3. Pressure to present a unified front:

   • Senior IC leaders — including Brennan and Clapper — appear to have pushed hard to harmonize language across agencies.

   • This included urging reluctant analysts to assign “high confidence” to conclusions they might otherwise have rated lower.

   • COMMENT: There is something to be looked at here. Brennan and Clapper are valid subjects for criticism. More scrutiny here could be justified. There is nothing in the documents, however, that even comes lose to criminal malfeasance as alleged by Gabbard.

4. The December 9, 2016 White House meeting:

   • The documents confirm a meeting involving Obama, Biden, Brennan, Clapper, and others that marked the start of the ICA drafting process.

   • The timeline from that meeting to the publication of the ICA was less than four weeks, an unusually compressed schedule.

What the Documents Don’t Show

• There is no evidence of fabrication of intelligence in any of the documents, nor is there evidence of anyone accusing anyone else of fabricating intelligence.

• No indication that Obama or other officials ordered false conclusions.

• No evidence that the ICA’s key findings were invented or maliciously distorted.

• The documents support the conclusion that Russia did not engage in vote tampering. But then there was never any claim of that. There is no claim in the documents that Russia did not engage in any influence campaign. The focus in the documents is vote tampering — not voter influence.

Final Thoughts: Hold the IC Accountable — But Be Honest About the Record

There is a legitimate conversation to be had about how the ICA was assembled. The speed. The sourcing. The internal pressures. The role of the Steele dossier. These are fair areas for scrutiny — and the documents Gabbard released do give that conversation more depth. They should be scrutinized and let the chips fall where they may.

But that’s not the conversation Gabbard is trying to have.

She’s not raising doubts about how confidently the IC stated its findings. She’s claiming there was no Russian interference at all, and that the entire narrative was fabricated — not exaggerated, not politically colored, but invented.

And to make that case, she leans not on facts, but on a calculated abuse of language: conflating vote tampering with information warfare, cherry-picking incomplete quotes, and removing essential context in ways that radically alter meaning.

It’s a classic tell: if your claim can’t survive precision, it probably can’t survive scrutiny.

This isn’t about defending Obama, or the IC, or anyone else. It’s about insisting that if the sitting DNI is going to accuse a former president and the heads of multiple agencies of “treason,” then that sitting DNI owes the country something better and more substantive than this. It’s fine to hold Obama, Clapper, and Brennan accountable but Gabbard’s manipulative obfuscation overhwhelms any probative value of her assertions.