A president directed a “betrayal plot”

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s first information official appeared in the White House briefing room to level the allegations that no US spy chief never did against a former president or administration.

National intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard accused former president Barack Obama and his deputies of making a “false intelligence analysis to show that Russia has tried to help Donald Trump win the 2016 elections.

Obama and former officials of his administration rejected allegations as well as base. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a low attempted distraction,” said Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush.

Democrats accused the administration of having tried to change the subject because many Trump supporters asked the government to publish more documents and information related to the deceased Jeffrey Epstein.

The leaders of the country’s intelligence agencies tended to keep a low public profile and to avoid the large supporters explicitly supporters, and even less insinuated than a former president may have initiated a criminal plot.

But Gabbard, serving a commander -in -chief who attracted the theories of the conspiracy and insisted that he was the victim of a partisan plot, ventured into an unexplored territory in his appearance in the White House.

“There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team led the creation of a community intelligence assessment they knew to be false,” said Gabbard, a former Democratic MP.

Gabbard announced that it had declared a five -year report from the Republicans in the House’s intelligence committee about the 2016 elections. The republican report was categorically rejected at the time by the Democratic Panel legislators who played no role in its creation.

The republican report sought to question an assessment of the American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections in order to strengthen Trump’s candidacy. The republican report revealed that most of the 2017 intelligence assessment – which assessed that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy – was “healthy”.

But he challenged the conclusion of the evaluation that Russian President Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Trump to win the 2016 elections. The Chamber’s report argued that the judgment of the intelligence agencies was based on a single element of human intelligence which was open to different interpretations. The report added that some CIA officers opposed the judgment on Putin’s intentions, arguing that intelligence behind it was insufficient.

The report of the Chamber Committee also accused the director of the CIA at the time, John Brennan, of having pushed to maintain the conclusion on Putin in the evaluation.

Bipartisan Senate report

Gabbard focused on the report of the Republican Chamber, but a probe from the Bipartite Senate released the same year has reached a different conclusion.

The Senate’s investigation in 2020, which lasted three years, involved more than 200 witnesses and examined more than a million documents, approved the assessment of the intelligence agencies that Russia had spread online disinformation and disclosed the stolen emails from the National Democratic Committee to undermine Clinton’s candidacy and support Trump’s prospects.

Trump’s current Secretary of State Marco Rubio was the acting president of the intelligence committee at the time. He and all the other members of the Committee, the Republicans and the Democrats, approved the report’s conclusions.

Gabbard’s decision to declare a former Republican Congress Report is the last in a series of administration actions designed to reopen a politically polarized debate on what happened in the 2016 elections and if Trump benefited from the Moscow information war.

Satisfactory none of the two parties

The analysis by the intelligence community of the 2016 elections and subsequent government surveys has never satisfied one of the two sides of the American political fracture.

Intelligence agencies have never rendered a verdict on the possible impact of Russia’s influence operations on the electoral result, and an investigation by special lawyer Robert Mueller noted that Russia had intervened in 2016 to Miner Clinton. But he did not find a evidence of a criminal plot between the Trump team and the Kremlin, as some left voices suggested.

At the same time, a special lawyer that Trump appointed during his first mandate, John Durham, disappointed militants on the political right with his three -year investigation. Durham said that he had found any criminal plot among Obama administration officials to make information on Russia operations and did not file any accusation against CIA officers who supervised the 2017 evaluation.

Democrats said Gabbard’s decision to declassify the Republican Chamber’s report could endanger sensitive sources on Russia.

“It seems that the Trump administration is willing to declassify anything and anything but Epstein files”, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, Democratic Vice-President of the Intelligence Committee, said in a press release. “The desperate and irresponsible release of the partisan house intelligence report endangers some of the most sensitive sources and methods that our intelligence community uses to spy on Russia.”

In his presentation to the White House, Gabbard has publicly described detailed Russian intelligence reports on Clinton, including allegations concerning his behavior and his health which had not been verified.

Gabbard then castigated Obama administration officials for including an unaccompanied file on Trump by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, in the 2017 intelligence assessment. The file was included in the annex of the evaluation with a non-responsibility clause that his statements had not been verified.

Representative Jim Himes, D-CONN., A classification member of House Intelligence Committee, described Gabbard’s claims “a transparent effort to distract bipartite criticism from the Trump administration to release Jeffrey Epstein’s files”.

Himes added, however, that Gabbard had crossed a new dangerous rhetorical line. “As part of his efforts to rewrite history”, ” He said in a press release“She accused President Obama and other former civil servants of engaging in a conspiracy in order to commit a betrayal – an assertion as dangerous as it is without foundation.”