What Does Tulsi Have that We Can Confirm
Segment #560
The perceived shift in the Intelligence Community (IC) position regarding Russia's intent to favor Trump after the December 9, 2016, meeting. These events have been described at some length through the prism of corrupt Democrats and their media protectors. No one was curious when facts kept arrising from both the Inspector General’s report and the Durham Report that did not favor the Dems position. We are all expected to accept this as a big mistake and conclude nothing to see here. But actually there is and this is just one area where Democrat leadership is waist deep in the slop that we now expected to Ignore. Keep listening
The Alleged Shift in IC Position on Russia Favoring Trump
Tulsi Gabbard's core argument, as Director of National Intelligence, is that the intelligence landscape regarding Russia's 2016 election interference changed dramatically and improperly after the December 9, 2016, NSC meeting.
Gabbard's Evidence and Interpretation:
Pre-December 9th IC Assessments: Gabbard points to documents like the August 31, 2016, DHS email and the September 9, 2016, memo from DNI Clapper's office, which stated "no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means" and that Russia "probably is not trying... to influence the election by using cyber means" to "manipulate... election infrastructure." Her interpretation is that these represent a clear IC position that Russia was not aiming to help Trump or manipulate the election outcome. She states that the FBI and ODNI also gave a classified briefing to the House Intelligence Committee on December 5, 2016, with "no mention of Putin aspiring to elect Trump."1
Post-December 9th Shift: Gabbard contends that the December 9th meeting, followed by Obama's directive for a comprehensive assessment, led to a "180-degree shift." She cites the immediate leak to the Washington Post on December 9th that the CIA concluded Russia intervened to help Trump. She then points to the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which explicitly stated, "We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." Gabbard views this as a "manufactured" and "false" narrative concocted to undermine Trump's legitimacy, directly contradicting prior IC positions.2
House Intelligence Committee Report (2020): Gabbard highlights this report's assertion that the "Putin preferred Trump" judgment relied on "flimsy, biased, and unverifiable intelligence" and that the ICA "excluded significant intelligence" that contradicted its findings, such as information that "some Russian intelligence officials were 'planning for candidate Hillary Clinton's victory.'
Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS, and Allegations of Favorable Treatment
The "Steele Dossier" and its connection to Fusion GPS are central to the claims of Hillary Clinton's involvement and alleged favorable treatment.
The Allegation:
The claim is that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC funded Fusion GPS, which then hired Christopher Steele to compile the "Steele Dossier."6 This dossier contained unverified and ultimately discredited allegations about Trump's ties to Russia. The Obama administration, it's argued, then either used this politically-motivated material to advance the "Russia collusion" narrative or otherwise ignored Clinton's role and potential impropriety, demonstrating favorable treatment.
Key Points Regarding Fusion GPS and the Dossier:
Funding Source: It is well-established that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, through their law firm, retained Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump.7 Fusion GPS, in turn, hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier.8
Contents and Verification: The Steele Dossier contained a series of unverified allegations regarding Trump's supposed connections to Russia, including salacious claims.9 A significant portion of the dossier's claims has been unsubstantiated or debunked.
FBI's Use of the Dossier: The FBI did use information from the Steele Dossier in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.10 However, subsequent reviews (such as the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report) found significant errors and omissions in the FBI's handling of these FISA applications, including relying on Steele's reporting without fully verifying it and failing to disclose information that undermined Steele's credibility.11
The core of the criticism, as laid out in the DOJ Inspector General (IG) report (Michael Horowitz) and later reinforced by the Durham Report, is that the FBI, in seeking FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants on Carter Page (a former Trump campaign advisor), heavily relied on the Steele Dossier despite knowing its limitations and lacking corroboration for its key allegations.
Allegations of Favorable Treatment: The argument for favorable treatment often centers on the idea that the FBI's investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion proceeded, in part, on information from a dossier funded by Clinton's campaign, while Clinton herself was not subjected to similar scrutiny for her campaign's actions or for the role of the dossier. Critics point to the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation as another example of perceived favorable treatment, though that is a separate issue.
In conclusion, the claim that "the Dems knew it was most probably discredited" aligns with the findings of various reports which indicate that the FBI itself was aware of the dossier's unverified nature. The controversy stems from the argument that despite this knowledge, the dossier was nevertheless used in a "central and essential" way to obtain FISA warrants, and that critical information about its origins and reliability was withheld or misrepresented to the court. This leads to the conclusion by critics that there was a politically motivated effort to use unverified information to advance an investigation against a political opponent.
Tulsi Gabbard's claims highlight a highly polarized debate about the 2016 Russian interference narrative. Her "proof" directly challenges the consensus view of the intelligence community and draws attention to internal IC discussions and a House Intelligence Committee report that raised questions about the certainty of some of the ICA's judgments.
The Core of the New Claims (as presented by DNI Gabbard and the declassified report):
"Manufactured Intelligence": DNI Gabbard has publicly stated that these documents provide "overwhelming evidence" that Obama administration officials "manufactured" or manipulated the January 2017 ICA. She claims they "knew was false" the narrative that Putin and the Russian government helped Trump win.
Challenging the "Clear Preference" for Trump: The declassified House Intelligence Committee report (drafted in 2017 by Republicans, with Kash Patel as a lead staffer, and finalized in 2020) reportedly focuses on the limited and potentially flawed intelligence used to support the ICA's "high confidence" judgment that Putin preferred Trump. It suggests that this conclusion relied on "flimsy, biased, and unverifiable intelligence."
Substandard Sources and Omissions: The report points to specific issues:
The Steele Dossier: While the ICA stated the dossier wasn't used for its analytical judgments, the declassified report indicates it was cited in the classified annex and used to "shape the context" of the assessment.
Flawed Raw Intelligence: It highlights that some foundational raw intelligence reports used to support the "preference" judgment were substandard, unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible. It alleges that the ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable.
Omission of Exculpatory Information: The report suggests the ICA ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence that challenged, or even undermined, the judgment that Putin sought to elect Trump. It specifically mentions that some intelligence might have indicated Putin had reasons to prefer Hillary Clinton.
Procedural Anomalies and Rushed Production: Criticisms within the declassified documents include:
Compressed Timeline: The ICA's production was reportedly rushed to be released before Trump took office, raising questions about political motivation.
Excessive Senior Involvement: There was an unusually high level of involvement from agency heads (like then-DCIA John Brennan), which some argue compromised analytic rigor and influenced participants.
Restricted Access: Tight compartmentation and limited access to underlying intelligence within the IC during the ICA's preparation may have limited opportunities for thorough review and challenge.
Politicization Allegations: The overall accusation is that the ICA was politicized, its conclusions driven by an agenda to undermine Trump, rather than being solely based on unvarnished intelligence analysis.