“New Evidence: Gabbard Accuses Obama of ‘Manufacturing’ Intelligence with Latest Russia Documents” | CNN Politics

One day after President Trump accused former President Obama of treason over Russian election interference, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, released a declassified report. Gabbard claimed the report contained evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy.”

This redacted report, put together by Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee, aims to challenge the conclusions of the FBI’s investigation into Russia. Critics see Gabbard’s actions as part of a broader strategy to discredit the intelligence community’s assessments about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Following Gabbard’s release of the report, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a task force to examine the evidence and determine possible legal actions stemming from Gabbard’s disclosures. Gabbard suggested the Obama administration orchestrated a manufactured narrative about Russian election interference. While she didn’t explicitly accuse Obama of treason, she pointed to evidence she believed implicated him in creating the intelligence assessment.

Many experts disagree with Gabbard. CIA Director John Ratcliffe reviewed the intelligence and stated that, while he had concerns about how the conclusions were drawn, the overall assessment that Russia aimed to assist Trump was still defensible.

Former Obama administration officials have dismissed Gabbard’s allegations, calling them unfounded. Democrats have accused her of endangering intelligence sources. They argue that releasing the report, which contained sensitive material, threatens the safety of those who provide information about Russia.

In fact, sensitive sources have been a longstanding topic in US intelligence operations. In 2017, one high-level source was extracted from Russia amid fears for their safety. Analysts are concerned that publicizing certain information could expose operational methods used to gather intelligence, ultimately jeopardizing national security.

Gabbard also emphasized that Russian officials aimed to create discord in American democracy, not just to help Trump win. However, the report she publicized doesn’t support her claims of a deliberate conspiracy by the Obama administration.

Historically, these disputes over intelligence assessments have reflected deeper political divides in the US. For instance, during the early days after the 2016 election, both sides argued over the implications of intelligence findings. A 2020 review from the Senate Intelligence Committee supported the earlier claims of interference while asserting the intelligence process was sound, contrasting sharply with Gabbard’s narrative.

Recent surveys indicate that public trust in US intelligence agencies has declined, with many Americans skeptical about their reports. This feeling is echoed in social media discussions, where users voice concerns about the politicization of intelligence.

In conclusion, while Gabbard’s declassification of the report has stirred significant debate, it has also raised critical questions about the integrity of intelligence processes and the implications of their public disclosure. The ongoing discourse highlights the fragile balance between transparency and national security.

For further details, you can access the full report here.

Source link