Tulsi Gabbard report shook the claims of Obama-era Russia, fuel investigation in intelligence malpractice. world News
There are stories that refuse to stay buried. It is wrapped in a Manila folder, half-jalaya, half-delicated, and now too much political grenades.This week, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, dusted a long -standing House Intelligence Committee report, one of the most sacred narratives of the American liberal conservative conservative: Russia wanted to win Donald Trump in 2016. What Gabbard issued was not just a report-it was a molotov cocktail thrown at the Edifis of Obama-eagon’s intelligence establishment.outcome? The Justice Department Task Force has now been formed to investigate whether Obama officials have called the “traitors” against Trump as “traitors”. The phrase can be on fire – but the allegations are serious.
TL; Dr.
- Gabbard has once rejected the report of the House Intelligence Committee, which disputes the 2016 intelligence claim that Putin favor Trump.
- The report argued that the original assessment depends on flimsy, biased and irreversible intelligence – some of which CIA analysts allegedly tried to block.
- Gabbard accused the Obama administration of orchestrating the politically motivated “manufacturing” of the Russia-Trump Katha.
- The Department of Justice has created a dedicated task force to investigate the origin and validity of intelligence evaluation.
- The report was stopped over the years due to concerns over internal CIA protests and concerns on revealing sources and methods.
What is in the report?
The document, earlier drafted in 2017, but buried for years, focuses on four major “clear” pieces that reportedly supported the claim that Putin wanted Tram to win. according to the report:
- One was now a steel doseer.
- There was another email in which there was a writer, recipient or date.
- There was a third one sentence piece that even CIA analysts could not understand.
- The fourth press clipping, out-of-date Lion was a mosaic of Intel and Russian Panditri, which did not directly mention Trump.
Even Brainon’s handpick CIA analysts were allegedly uncomfortable. Two warned that the conclusions about Putin’s objectives did not meet the standard tradecraft. His warning was rejected. When someone raised doubts about the credibility of the steel dossier, former CIA director John Brainon said, “Yes, but isn’t it true?”The report himself was compiled by a team of investigators handed over by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under the then Chairman Dewin Nuns. The team consisted of career intelligence experts and legal analysts who reviewed the 2,300-hour of the classified source materials at the CIA headquarters, most of its parts. Among the major drafts were Kash Patel, who was now serving as Trump’s FBI Director. Many amendments were made in the report through 2020, but they were classified until Gabbard ordered its release in 2025.
This internal dissatisfaction was eliminated. As a result, the assessment of the intelligence community was published in January 2017 and it became the foundation for years of investigation, op-add and cable news hysteria. But now, in the saying of Gabbard, all this began with smoke and mirror.
Why was it suppressed?
The report ended in 2017 and was updated in 2020, but never saw the light of the day. Intelligence officials, especially within the CIA, objected to its release on the basis that it could highlight sources and methods. Others within the office of the Director of National Intelligence allegedly feared that it would embarrass the senior figures of the Obama era – including Brainon, Clapper, and Komi.It remained closed in a safe convenience, allegedly ordered its release in 2025 until Gabard -Tramp’s insistence at the CIA headquarters.The irony, of course, is rich: a report about politicization for political reasons.
What is the Department of Justice doing?
In a brief but indicated declaration, the Department of Justice confirmed the formation of a new task force to investigate the origin of the 2016 ICA and any illegal tasks tied to its development or spread. While in the statement, the inflammatory language was avoided, the authorities privately admit that the investigation could expand for the pre -intelligence leaders – and even the former President.Gabbard has claimed that it refers to the FBI specific documents and conclusions. Trump has called the revelations “proof of treason”, for his share. Partners say that it depends on how the justice department moves forward.For now, the Task Force is in the evidence-sabha mode. But in the coming weeks, subponus, deposits and close-door hearing are widely expected.
why it matters
1. It re-presents the entire Russia-Tramp KathaIf the main conclusion of ICA was politically operated or based on incredible Intel, years of investigation, impeachment and prosecutors are thrown into question.2. It attacks the credibility of Obama-era intelligence leadersComi, Brain, Clapper -Everyone played an important role in shaping Russia’s public understanding. This report puts a shadow on their decisions and internal decisions.3. It underlines the risk of political intelligenceThe line between analysis and advocacy is considered sacred. If the allegations of Gabbard are caught, the line was slanting.4. It raises questions about oversight and transparencyWhy was a Congress report hidden from the public for almost eight years? And what does the lock and the key live under?5. It revives Trump’s case against the so -called “deep situation”The way Epstein files threatened him to swamp, Trump now has a new story: he was a victim of a fabricated intelligence coup.
From Baghdad to Steel: A pattern of Consent Consent?
In a banged thread, journalist Matt Tabi pulled a straight parallel between steel dosier and false WMD claims of the Iraq war, alleging that American intelligence and law enforcement officials deliberately pushed flawless information to harm Donald Trump. According to Taibbi, FBI analysts were ordered to “push” the steel material despite raising concerns about its reliability. When faced about his flaws, CIA director John Brainnan allegedly separated him with a comment, “Yes, but isn’t it true?” FBI director James Comi stressed that the doseer was “important” to include in the official briefing. Taibbi said how James Clapper, who had previously accepted to find things “really there during the Iraq WMD Fiysco, played a similar role in increasing the claims of the dosier. Taibbi argues that it was not only a matter of poor intelligence, but also a deliberate, coordinated attempt – one that ruined reputation, sown partition, and paralyzed the country, which now appears to be a protestor lie.
Fasting
Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?Yes. The new report does not challenge the existence of intervention – it questions the claim that Putin had “clear preference” for Trump.Is this Trump?Politically, perhaps. Legally, not necessary. But it challenges the validity of basic intelligence, which led to years of investigation.Why did Steel Dazier do?Although the authorities now claimed that it did not play any role in the ICA’s analytical decisions, the report shows that it was quoted in classified annex and used to shape the context of evaluation.Was Brainon warned?Yes. The report states that many analysts expressed concern about the dosier and other evidence. Brainon ended them.what happens next?Expect Sabponas, hearing and intensive media crossfire. Trump’s associates are already calling for allegations against Brainon and Komi. Obama’s role will probably come under investigation.
Last word
For years, critics of Russia-Tramp Katha were dismissed as the theorists of the conspiracy. With the suppressed report of Tulsi Gabbard and the issue of justice department now on the case, the conspiracy can finally become a headline. The question is no longer whether Russia has intervened – but whether America’s intelligence agencies played politics with truth.
