The Earl Angle
Posts
Gabbard Accuses Obama Officials of Treason

Gabbard Accuses Obama Officials of Treason

July 19, 2025

Key Takeaways

DNI Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama-era officials (Clapper, Brennan, Comey) of a “treasonous conspiracy” for allegedly manufacturing Russia-Trump collusion intelligence .
She referred all evidence to the DOJ for criminal prosecution, claiming the goal was to “usurp” President Trump .
A bipartisan Senate report (2020) unanimously affirmed Russia interfered to benefit Trump, contradicting Gabbard’s “politicization” narrative .
Legal experts note “treason” requires wartime acts; no prior probe (Mueller, Durham, Senate Intel) found criminal conspiracy among officials .
Democrats label Gabbard’s move a distraction from Epstein case fallout; GOP praises it as “Dismantling the Deep State” .

The Allegations: “Treasonous Conspiracy” or Political Theater?

DNI Tulsi Gabbard dropped a political grenade on July 19, 2025. She released declassified documents accusing top Obama officials—James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI)—of a “treasonous conspiracy.” Her claim? They “manufactured and politicized intelligence” about Russia’s 2016 election meddling to undermine Trump’s presidency. She called it a “years-long coup” and referred all evidence to the DOJ for criminal prosecution .

Gabbard’s memo centers on a December 9, 2016, White House meeting. There, Obama allegedly directed agencies to produce a fresh intelligence assessment blaming Russia for election interference. She argues this reversed pre-election findings that Russia was “probably not” using cyber means to influence outcomes. Key point: The new assessment relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, which officials knew was unreliable .

Critics pounced immediately. Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) reminded Gabbard that the Senate Intel Committee’s bipartisan, 3-year investigation unanimously confirmed Russia’s interference. That report detailed hacking of election infrastructure and a social media disinformation campaign favoring Trump .

Contradictions in Gabbard's Claims vs. Senate Findings

The Intelligence Community’s Civil War

Gabbard’s move exposes a deepening rift. She now leads agencies (CIA, FBI) whose career analysts contributed to the 2016 Russia assessment she calls fraudulent. Internal backlash is brewing. One intelligence veteran (anonymous) told CNN: “Calling your own workforce treasonous? Unprecedented. Morale is shattered” .

Her credibility faces scrutiny too. In her 2025 confirmation hearing, Gabbard vowed to “depoliticize intelligence.” Yet she previously urged Trump to pardon Edward Snowden—who leaked classified NSA files. Senator Warner slammed her hypocrisy: “She won’t call Snowden a traitor but accuses Obama officials of treason?” .

Why This Timing?

Epstein Files Release: DOJ unsealed Epstein grand jury testimony hours before Gabbard’s announcement .
Iran Intel Dispute: Reports suggest Trump distanced himself from Gabbard after she disputed White House claims about Iran’s nuclear program .

Republican leaders cheered her on. Speaker Mike Johnson tweeted: “DISMANTLING THE DEEP STATE! Accountability is long overdue” .

The “Evidence”: What the Documents Actually Show

Gabbard’s 114-page document dump focuses on two claims:

Pre-Election Intel Downplayed Russian Cyber Threats: A December 7, 2016, memo stated: “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome” .
Post-Election Reversal Driven by Politics: After Obama’s December 9 meeting, Clapper’s team pushed agencies to draft a new assessment (ICA) emphasizing Russian interference. Gabbard says this ignored earlier findings .

But here’s the gap: The bipartisan Senate report also found no proof votes were changed. Its conclusion? Russia hacked voter databases and ran social media ops to boost Trump—which the ICA accurately reflected. Even Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, endorsed those findings in 2020 .

Former officials’ testimony adds nuance. James Clapper told Congress in 2017: “I never saw direct empirical evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.” But he noted “anecdotal evidence” raised concerns . Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice gave similar answers—no smoking gun, but red flags justified investigation .

Legal Precedents: Why “Treason” Charges Face Long Odds

Gabbard’s criminal referral faces steep hurdles. Let’s break it down:

Treason Definition: The Constitution defines it as levying war against the U.S. or aiding enemies during war. No U.S. official has been convicted of treason since WWII . Legal scholars call her label “legally baseless.”
Prior Investigations:
- Mueller Probe (2019): Found no criminal Trump-Russia conspiracy.
- Durham Probe (2023): Indicted three low-level figures (e.g., an FBI lawyer who doctored an email)—not high-level officials .
- DOJ Inspector General (2019): Criticized FBI surveillance errors but found no political bias .

Currently, the FBI is investigating Brennan and Comey for possible false statements to Congress about the Steele Dossier’s role in the ICA. Brennan testified in 2023 the CIA “opposed including the dossier.” But a declassified email shows he overruled analysts who warned it jeopardized the ICA’s credibility .

Still, legal experts note even if proven, false statements rarely yield charges. Even less so after eight years.

The Fallout: Trust in Intelligence “Irreparably Damaged”

National security veterans are sounding alarms. A former CIA deputy director (anonymous) told Politico: “Calling this treason shreds norms. Analysts now fear honest assessments could be criminalized if administrations change” .

Gabbard’s own words haunt her too. During confirmation, she outlined a 4-point plan to prevent leaks:

End unconstitutional surveillance.
Reform security clearances.
Educate whistleblowers on legal channels.
Create a DNI hotline for reports .

Critics ask: Why not use those channels now? By publicly accusing predecessors of treason before a DOJ review, she’s accused of prejudging outcomes.

Timeline: How We Got Here

July 2016: FBI opens “Crossfire Hurricane” after receiving Steele Dossier claims .
Jan 2017: Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) cites Russian interference to help Trump. Steele data is in a footnote .
2020: Senate Intel Committee (bipartisan) affirms ICA conclusions .
March 2025: Trump orders declassification of all “Crossfire Hurricane” files .
July 2025: Gabbard releases memo, refers case to DOJ .

FAQs: Untangling Gabbard’s “Treason” Allegations

Q1: What exactly does Gabbard accuse Obama officials of?A: She claims they “manufactured” evidence of Russian election interference to justify spying on Trump’s campaign and undermine his presidency—calling it a “coup.” She labels this “treason” .

Q2: Is there proof votes were changed in 2016?A: No. All investigations agree: Russia hacked voter databases and ran propaganda but didn’t alter vote counts .

Q3: Why do Democrats call this a distraction?A: Gabbard’s announcement coincided with DOJ releasing Jeffrey Epstein files—where Trump was named. Critics argue she’s deflecting attention .

Q4: Could Brennan or Comey go to jail?A: Unlikely. The FBI is probing possible false statements to Congress, but such cases rarely lead to charges. “Treason” is legally implausible .

Q5: How does this affect U.S. intelligence credibility?A: Former NSA director Michael Hayden warns: “Politicizing intel assessments risks long-term distrust. Allies share less; analysts self-censor”