Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has challenged mainstream narratives about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, asserting that Moscow actually anticipated Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. This revelation comes as part of a broader document release showing Russia's primary goal was to sow discord in American politics rather than specifically help Donald Trump's campaign.
According to the New York Post, Gabbard made these statements during an appearance on Miranda Devine's "Pod Force One" podcast set to release Wednesday. Her comments directly challenge years of established narratives about Russian election interference that dominated much of Trump's presidency.
"As we've learned in later documents that we've reviewed throughout that campaign, Russia believed that Hillary Clinton would win the election," Gabbard said. "They felt it was inevitable."
Gabbard's team has been systematically releasing intelligence documents giving an unprecedented look at the intelligence community's internal workings during the 2016 election cycle. These materials paint a different picture than what was previously presented to the American public regarding Russia's intentions.
A House Intelligence Committee report from 2020 included in these releases suggested that Russia possessed intelligence claiming Clinton was "placed on a daily regimen of 'heavy tranquilizers'" and suffered from "psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness." Gabbard questioned why such information wasn't leaked if Russia's primary goal was helping Trump.
According to Gabbard, Russia's actual plan was to hold back damaging information until after Clinton's expected inauguration. "It was intentionally withheld and not released because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win that election," she explained.
The former presidential candidate has focused much of her criticism on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded that "the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." Gabbard's document releases aim to undermine this conclusion.
Gabbard asserted that the narrative about Russian collusion with Trump was manufactured by the Obama administration. "President Trump went through hell and his family because of this Russia hoax that was manufactured by President Obama and his administration," she said during the podcast interview.
She further alleged that Obama ordered the creation of the 2017 intelligence report as part of "a covert mission, essentially, to subvert the will of the American people" and challenge Trump's legitimacy through what she characterized as a "years-long coup."
Former intelligence officials targeted in Gabbard's accusations have strongly disputed her characterizations. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have called her allegations "patently false."
The two intelligence veterans recently authored an op-ed defending their work on Russian interference. They emphasized that their assessment never referenced "collusion" between Trump and Russia, but maintained that evidence showed the Kremlin preferred Trump in the 2016 election.
Critics point to a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report which found "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions" in the original intelligence assessment. This Senate report stands in contrast to the House Intelligence Committee document Gabbard relies on.
The Department of Justice has formed a "strike force" to examine the allegations raised by Gabbard's document dump. This investigation will review claims that Obama administration officials knowingly used questionable intelligence in their assessment of Russian interference.
The Obama team has firmly rejected Gabbard's accusations. Spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush issued a statement calling them "bizarre allegations" that are "ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction." He emphasized that nothing in Gabbard's released documents undermines the conclusion that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election.
One area of agreement across various intelligence reports is that while Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election, they did not successfully manipulate any votes or directly alter the election outcome. The debate centers on Russia's motivations and which candidate they preferred, not whether they changed vote tallies.
