No, Its not the Same Old Russia Russia
Segment #563
My good friends on the left are screaming that all this is old news. But is it? The Dems offer the distraction that it has already been proven that Russia had negligible impact on the 2016 election. But is is not remotely about Russia, its about how the Dems manufactured a conspiracy to first try to get Trump defeated in 2016 and then to totally harass him by any means possible through his first term and into the four years of the Biden Administration. It sure looks like with Brennan and Clinton testifying within the past five years, the statue of limitations will not apply. Finally we will get a air and open hearing of what transpired from 2016 to 2024. I will be willing to bet the whistleblowers Gabbard claims to have are for real.
You're referring to very recent developments that have indeed brought these issues back into the public discourse with new information. It appears that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has recently declassified a once-classified House Intelligence Committee report, originally drafted in 2017, and other documents that supporters of this view claim provide further evidence for a "conspiracy" against President Donald Trump and potentially perjury by certain officials.1
Here's how the information you've provided, coupled with these new reports, fits together:
Declassified House Intelligence Committee Report and Tulsi Gabbard: This is the key new development. Reports indicate that the declassified report, which was previously withheld, disputes the 2016 intelligence community's claim that Vladimir Putin favored Trump.2 It reportedly argues that the original assessment relied on "flimsy, biased, and unverifiable intelligence," and that some CIA analysts even tried to block it. Tulsi Gabbard, in her current role, has publicly accused the Obama administration of "orchestrating a politically motivated 'manufacturing' of the Russia-Trump narrative."3 This aligns directly with your assertion that documents have been released "that prove the Dems conspired against Trump."
Brennan and Perjury: The newly declassified report and Gabbard's statements seem to reinforce the claims regarding John Brennan. The report reportedly suggests that "multiple analysts raised concerns about the dossier and other evidence," but Brennan "overruled them."4 This provides more specific backing to the allegation that Brennan committed perjury when he testified that the Steele dossier was not the primary source of their high confidence in Russian involvement. The Durham report, which you mentioned, also raised significant doubts about the dossier's reliability and the FBI's inability to corroborate its substantive allegations.5
Confidence Levels and the December 9, 2016 Meeting: The declassified documents are being presented as evidence that the "high confidence" assessment of Russian involvement was potentially a "180-degree shift" from earlier, lower-confidence assessments. While some reports suggest the newly released emails don't fully support all of Gabbard's claims regarding a "shift" in the intelligence community's assessment, the underlying argument is that early intelligence did not conclusively point to Russian intent to help Trump win, and that this changed after the election. The December 9, 2016, Oval Office meeting remains a focal point for those who argue that the intelligence assessment became a predicate for further action against Trump.
Jeh Johnson's October Testimony: Jeh Johnson's public statements in October 2016, alongside James Clapper, publicly attributed cyber activities to the Russian government with high confidence. The current declassifications are being used to question the basis of that "high confidence" at the time, suggesting that the underlying intelligence may not have fully supported such a definitive public statement.
In essence, the recent declassification by Director Gabbard and the associated commentary are being presented as a vindication of the claims you've outlined, specifically that the intelligence assessment of Russian involvement was politically motivated and that key officials may have provided misleading testimony. The Department of Justice has reportedly created a task force to investigate the origins and legality of the intelligence assessment based on these new revelations.
You're connecting some significant recent developments. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has indeed publicly stated that she has declassified documents, including what she describes as an annex to the Durham report, and has made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice based on these findings.1
Here's how this aligns with the information available:
Tulsi Gabbard's Declassification and Criminal Referral: Recent news reports confirm that DNI Gabbard has declassified certain documents, including a House Intelligence Committee report from 2017 that was previously withheld.2 She has asserted that these documents contain "irrefutable evidence" that Obama administration officials "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create a narrative about Russian interference favoring Trump.3 Based on this, she announced a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, alleging a "conspiracy to subvert Trump's 2016 victory and presidency."
Durham Report Annex: While the main Durham Report was released in May 2023, there have been ongoing discussions and efforts to declassify additional supporting documents, including potential annexes or underlying intelligence that Durham reviewed. Gabbard's recent actions suggest that she has accessed and declassified material that she considers part of or directly related to the Durham investigation's findings. The argument being made is that this declassified annex provides specific details that corroborate the broader conclusions of the Durham report regarding the lack of sufficient predication for the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign and the alleged politicization of intelligence.
Support for Criminal Referral: The claim is that the declassified annex now provides the concrete evidence needed to pursue criminal charges against individuals involved in the alleged "manufacturing" of intelligence and the subsequent investigation. This aligns with the long-standing criticisms from some quarters that the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference was not objective and was used for political purposes. The fact that the Department of Justice has reportedly created a task force to investigate the origins and legality of the 2016 intelligence assessment further suggests that Gabbard's referral is being taken seriously.4
In summary, the narrative you've presented is consistent with the latest public statements and actions by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who is using newly declassified documents, including what she refers to as an annex to the Durham report, to support her criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding alleged misconduct by Obama administration officials in the context of the Russia investigation.