For years, Democrats touted former President Barack Obama’s administration as the most scandal-free in modern history. Given the controversies surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attack, the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and the National Security Agency’s surveillance of American citizens and foreign leaders on his watch, it was a remarkable claim for anyone to make.
But it was the Obama administration’s determined efforts to weaponize the U.S. intelligence agencies against then-candidate Donald Trump that marked the most alarming abuse of all.
The fallout from the Trump-Russia collusion scandal has shaken Americans’ faith in once-revered national institutions and left the electorate more deeply divided than at any time since the Civil War. It has left deep scars on the country which will take years, if not generations, to erase.
Notably, after releasing more than 100 documents last week that provided the clearest insight yet into Obama’s role in the scandal, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard became the first Trump administration official to publicly utter the words “Obama” and “treason” in the same sentence. For many of us, it was a moment of relief, a green light to finally say out loud what we’ve discussed in private for years.
Several days later, Gabbard revealed that whistleblowers from the intelligence community had come forward. In fact, she told Fox News they were “coming out of the woodwork.”
Among them were individuals who had worked on the original Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election — the one that concluded Russia had attempted to meddle in the race, but found no evidence that those efforts affected the final outcome. That assessment was later replaced by a new version asserting that “Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” and “aspired to help” him win.
During a Tuesday Oval Office press conference, Trump took things a little further. He told reporters that Obama was “the ringleader.”
“The leader of the gang was President Obama,” Trump said. “This was treason. … They tried to steal the election.”
Following what was likely a frantic round of consultations with lawyers and advisers, Obama’s office issued a very carefully worded — and condescending — response to the president’s remarks.
The statement read, “Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.
“These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
Gabbard responded by releasing a damning report prepared by the House Intelligence Committee in September 2020. The report found that the Obama-era intelligence community lacked direct evidence that Putin was on Trump’s side, yet the “implausible” claim was still included in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment at Obama’s “unusual” direction.
House investigators found that the “ICA suppressed intelligence” showing that Putin was “not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,” but also indicated “that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.”
The committee found that the ICA was “rushed” into production “in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn in.” The report states that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.”
Moreover, the report revealed that, in 2016, Russian intelligence had obtained internal Democratic National Committee emails alleging that Clinton was on a “daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers” and faced several serious illnesses as well. According to the emails, Clinton “suffered from Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” and that party leaders were alarmed by these illnesses.
The report stated: “The SVR [Russia’s foreign intelligence service] possessed DNC communications that Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psycho-emotional problems including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.’ Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers,’ and while afraid of losing, she remained ‘obsessed with a thirst for power.’”
If the Russians had truly intended to damage Clinton’s campaign, they would have released the DNC emails before the election. Instead, they appeared to be holding them back, perhaps as ‘kompromat’ to be used after what they, like many, expected to be her victory.
Perhaps one of the most memorable days of the 2016 presidential election cycle occurred at a 9/11 memorial ceremony in New York City, where Clinton fell ill. She was escorted to a waiting SUV and had to be held up by aides as she stumbled into the vehicle.
Despite the report’s claims of alarm among party leaders, they were still willing to rally behind a presidential candidate with apparent psychological issues and significant health concerns, just as they would again, four and eight years later.
For a party that has relentlessly called Trump a “threat to democracy,” Obama and his top lieutenants certainly engaged in some undeniably undemocratic behavior.
Time can soften, or even erase, the severity of past events. But we cannot forget the turmoil inflicted on the nation by the fabricated accusations against Trump. He spent over half his first term defending himself against a manufactured narrative designed to entangle his administration in a web of legal and political warfare.
Even after special counsel Robert Mueller’s March 2019 report failed to find evidence that Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election, the Democrats were unwilling to admit that the lack of evidence meant it hadn’t happened. Instead, they left the door open to the possibility that it was true, just not yet proven.
RETHINKING RUSSIAGATE IN THE SHADOW OF THE EPSTEIN FILES
Astoundingly, a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports found that 60% of Democrats still believe the lie.
While it’s highly unlikely that Obama will go to jail for his actions, the revelations of the past week have tainted his legacy forever.
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner and the Western Journal. She is also a Heritage Foundation Academy fellow. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.