Newly declassified documents suggest a political bombshell that could rewrite the narrative of the 2016 election meddling saga.
Just The News reported that former President Barack Obama publicly endorsed a CIA assessment alleging Russian interference aimed at helping Donald Trump and harming Hillary Clinton, well before the official Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was even finalized.
Obama, in early December, directed the intelligence community to craft a comprehensive report on these allegations, demanding it be ready before his exit from office on January 20, 2017. Yet, even as the wheels were still turning on that report, leaks from unnamed sources started painting a damning picture.
It was long suspected that Obama was using his presidential powers to damage Trump and help Clinton and these reports confirm these years-old suspicions that Democrats abused the power of the president to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
By mid-December 2016, Obama was already on record supporting a leaked CIA viewpoint that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Clinton.
This was weeks before the ICA’s most classified draft was completed on December 30, 2016, raising eyebrows about rushing to judgment.
During a December 19 NPR interview, Obama stated, “No one should be surprised” by the CIA’s take. Surprised? Maybe not, but many are now questioning whether such early public backing undermined the integrity of a still-developing intelligence process.
Even as late as December 20, the ICA draft team was scrambling through last-minute coordination, with some insiders admitting they felt “jammed” by the tight timeline. If the experts were still hashing out details, why was the president already amplifying a narrative?
Before Obama’s endorsements, discrepancies among agencies were evident—while a December 9 Washington Post story cited a senior official claiming the CIA saw a clear Russian tilt toward Trump, the very next day another report noted the FBI wasn’t convinced of any specific intent. This tug-of-war between agencies suggests the story wasn’t as cut-and-dried as presented.
Earlier assessments, like a September 2016 ICA, attributed Russian actions to a broad desire to discredit U.S. elections, with no mention of favoring a candidate.
An October joint statement from DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also stopped short of assigning motives to help Trump or hurt Clinton. So, where did the sudden certainty come from?
Fast forward to the January 2017 ICA, which concluded with “high confidence” from the CIA and FBI that Putin aimed to boost Trump, though the NSA only mustered “moderate confidence” on this point. Recent reviews criticize this bold claim, pointing to a thin source base and ignored dissenting evidence.
Declassified reports reveal Obama ordered a rewrite of multiple assessments on Russian activities as early as December 6, 2016, pushing for a narrative that would stick.
Meetings in the White House Situation Room, chaired by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, underscored the urgency from the top.
Adding fuel to the fire, then-CIA Director John Brennan insisted on including the now-discredited Steele Dossier in the ICA, despite objections from seasoned CIA officers who warned it failed basic standards. A recent CIA review slammed this move as undermining the report’s credibility—hardly a glowing endorsement of analytical rigor.
Gabbard, speaking at a White House briefing last month, didn’t mince words: “There is irrefutable evidence” of a directed, false narrative. While her claim carries weight for those skeptical of government overreach, it’s worth noting the complexity of intelligence work isn’t always black-and-white.
An Obama spokesperson fired back, calling such allegations “ridiculous” and a distraction from the broader consensus that Russia meddled, though not to manipulate votes.
They pointed to a 2020 bipartisan Senate report affirming Russian interference, but skeptics might ask if that sidesteps the issue of premature conclusions.
What lingers is a question of trust—did Obama’s early statements, amplified by media leaks, shape public perception before the facts were fully vetted? For conservatives wary of establishment overreach, this timeline smells like a rush to judgment, even if the intent was to protect national interests.