Gabbard calls BS Obama statement: deflect away, create doc as foundation yrs-long coup against Trump

DNI Tulsi Gabbard directly rebutted Barack Obama’s office — which had characterized her allegations as baseless — by calling the response “the art of deflection coming from former President Obama.” Gabbard restated the specific documentary case: the pre-election intelligence community consensus that Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the election; the post-election PDB document that was consistent with that consensus; the pulled document; the NSC meeting where Obama directed then-DNI Clapper to produce a new assessment “not if, but how Moscow attempted to influence the outcome.” On the Steele Dossier: Brennan, Clapper, and Comey stated “with high confidence” the January 2017 ICA while using “already discredited information like the Steele Dossy. They knew it was discredited at that time, yet they used it as a source.” Obama’s statement and the parallel statements from Democratic Senator Mark Warner and Congressman Jim Himes “don’t actually address the issue,” Gabbard said — the “180 degree shift” in the intelligence community assessment.

”Art of Deflection”

The interview opened with the reporter quoting Obama’s response. “Former President Obama there, he’s saying that none of this makes any sense, that this is a distraction. What do you say to that?”

Gabbard’s reply was direct. “It’s the art of deflection coming from former President Obama, as well as his friends who are still in Congress today, and Senator Warner and Congressman Jim Himes, really all basically saying that exact same statement, which doesn’t actually address the issue that was revealed in great detail in the over 100 documents that we released last week, and the documents that we will be releasing later this week.”

“Art of deflection” is the characterization. Obama’s response — that the allegations “don’t make sense” and are “a distraction” — does not engage with the specific documentary record. It challenges the framing without engaging the substance.

The “same statement” from Warner (D-VA, Senate Intelligence Committee vice chair) and Himes (D-CT, House Intelligence Committee ranking member) is the chorus-of-denial Gabbard is pointing to. All three voices are saying similar things. None are engaging with the specific documents.

The Specific Timeline

Gabbard walked back through the timeline she had previously established. “The intelligence community had one assessment, that Russia did not have the intent or capability to try to impact the outcome of the US election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after Donald Trump was elected by the American people as President in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton.”

Two assessments: pre-election and post-election. Both consistent. Both concluding Russia lacked intent and capability.

“And it wasn’t until after that polled President’s daily brief document that you referenced, that the principles committee was called in the National Security Council, and President Obama then directed then his Obama’s ODI, D&I James Clapper to lead the effort to create this new intelligence community assessment that detailed not if, but how Moscow attempted to influence the outcome of the US election.”

That is the directive Gabbard is documenting. Obama directly instructing Clapper to produce an assessment starting from the conclusion (“Moscow did”) and working backward to the evidence. Not “investigate whether Moscow influenced.” Investigate “how Moscow did."

"The 180-Degree Shift”

“So this is the thing that I think people should pay attention to is neither the message from President Obama’s office, neither the statements coming from Democrats in Congress today and their friends in the propaganda media. None of them are addressing this fact, that there was a shift, a 180 degree shift from the intelligence community’s assessment leading up to the election, to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election, that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.”

“180 degree shift” is the characterization of the intelligence community’s reversal. Pre-election and immediately post-election: Russia did not impact. After Obama’s directive: Russia did impact. The same institution. The same analysts. Different direction. Explainable, in Gabbard’s framing, only by the Obama directive changing the question being asked.

“Neither the message from President Obama’s office, neither the statements coming from Democrats in Congress today and their friends in the propaganda media” — Gabbard is not spreading blame evenly. She is naming the specific sources of deflection: Obama’s office, Democratic members of Congress, and their allied media.

”Brennan, Clapper, Comey”

Gabbard then moved to the second major allegation — the use of the Steele Dossier as a source for the high-confidence assessment. “The second thing I want to address that’s very important, Lara, is that you saw John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey stated with high confidence this January intelligence community assessment that they drafted at the direction of President Obama.”

“Stated with high confidence” — that is the key phrase. The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was published as a high-confidence product. In intelligence tradecraft, “high confidence” assessments are supposed to rest on well-corroborated, multi-source intelligence.

“The fact is that they used already discredited information like the Steele Dossy. They knew it was discredited at that time, yet they used it as a source for this document that they claimed to have high confidence in.”

That is the specific tradecraft charge. Steele Dossier — known to be problematic, known to be research commissioned by an opposing political campaign, known to contain unverified allegations — was nonetheless incorporated into the ICA. High-confidence framing was applied to a document that relied on discredited sources.

“They used intelligence that some of these intelligence community professionals rejected previously because of the lack of credibility and the lack of the ability to vet with any kind of confidence, whether or not that information or intelligence was accurate and could be used for an assessment.”

That is Gabbard confirming that some intelligence community professionals had previously rejected the Steele-Dossier-derived material as uncredible. It was overridden at the senior level. Senior officials chose to include it despite analyst-level objections.

”A Long Laundry List”

“There’s a long laundry list of facts and intelligence reporting that directly contradict the statement coming from President Obama’s office, those who are trying to deflect away from what actually happened, which was after Donald Trump was elected.”

“A long laundry list” is Gabbard’s signal that more material is coming. The documents released so far — 100+ — are the opening installment. “Thousands of additional documents” coming, per Trump’s earlier framing. Each release will add to the factual record the Obama-office deflection is failing to address.

”Led by President Obama”

“Led by President Obama, there was an effort to create a document that would serve as a foundation for what would be a years-long coup against President Trump, therefore trying to subvert the will of the American people who sent him to the White House in 2016.”

That is the restatement of the core thesis. Obama-led. Document-foundation. Years-long coup. Subversion of the will of the American people.

The legal and political consequences of that framing, if it holds, are the consequences of the historical moment. A former president leading a conspiracy to manufacture intelligence that drove a multi-year effort against his elected successor is, if proven, conduct that exceeds any American political scandal in scale. Watergate involved a sitting president’s campaign operation. This allegation is different in kind — it involves a predecessor administration’s senior leadership attempting to undermine the successor through the manufactured intelligence apparatus.

The Historical Stakes

If Gabbard’s characterization holds, several consequences follow:

1. The Mueller investigation, which rested substantially on the January 2017 ICA’s conclusions, would be legally and politically retroactively invalidated as built on corrupt foundations.
2. The first impeachment of Trump — over Ukraine communications — would be seen, in part, as a downstream continuation of the same pattern, using pretextual investigative mechanisms to pursue a president whose legitimacy the opposition did not accept.
3. The six-plus years of Russia-collusion media coverage would need institutional reassessment. The mainstream outlets that amplified the narrative would face credibility questions.
4. Specific individuals — Brennan, Clapper, Comey, possibly Obama himself — would face potential DOJ scrutiny that Americans of their stature rarely face.

Whether the administration follows through on the legal consequences is the operational question. Gabbard has released the documents. The legal process has not yet engaged.

Two Storylines, One Institution

Gabbard’s Russiagate reassessment runs in parallel with the administration’s broader anti-institutional campaign. The Fed — criticized for its $2.5-2.7 billion renovation and its failure to cut rates. The State Department — layoffs of career appointees. USAID — restructured and scaled back. The FBI and DOJ — ongoing cultural overhaul. PBS and NPR — federal funding eliminated via rescissions.

Each individual reform is contested on its merits. The cumulative effect is the administration asserting that multiple major American institutions have been captured by ideological preferences and require restoration to proper functioning. The Obama-led manufactured intelligence allegation is, in that broader framework, the most consequential single case of institutional capture — because the institution in question is the intelligence community itself, and the consequence was four years of attempted governance-through-investigation.

Key Takeaways

• DNI Gabbard called Obama’s response “the art of deflection” — Obama’s office, Sen. Mark Warner, and Rep. Jim Himes “all basically saying that exact same statement, which doesn’t actually address the issue.”
• The specific sequence: pre-election and post-election intelligence assessments both concluded Russia lacked intent and capability to impact the outcome — then Obama directed Clapper to produce a new assessment “not if, but how Moscow attempted to influence the outcome.”
• Brennan, Clapper, and Comey stated the January 2017 ICA “with high confidence” while using “already discredited information like the Steele Dossy. They knew it was discredited at that time, yet they used it as a source.”
• “A long laundry list of facts and intelligence reporting that directly contradict the statement coming from President Obama’s office … deflect away from what actually happened.”
• Gabbard’s core claim: “Led by President Obama, there was an effort to create a document that would serve as a foundation for what would be a years-long coup against President Trump.”