Millions of Americans knew the Russia collusion was a hoax. Now there’s consequences for the perpetrators.
And now Tulsi Gabbard has uncovered seriously disturbing details about the Trump-Russia hoax.
A high-ranking intelligence official, who served as a whistleblower in the Trump-Russia collusion controversy, faced intimidation for highlighting misconduct, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled documents detailing the whistleblower’s persistent attempts to reveal what the office describes as “severe manipulation and fabrication of intelligence data.”
The documents outline the whistleblower’s efforts in the months before the 2016 presidential election, raising alarms about the use of “unreliable information as then-DNI Clapper and CIA Director Brennan shaped the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) under President Obama’s direction.” The office noted that a supervisor allegedly pressured the whistleblower to support the ICA’s conclusions regarding alleged Russian backing of Donald Trump.
“Thank you to the brave Intelligence Community Whistleblower who courageously came forward to expose the truth about one of the biggest and most impactful scandals in our nation’s history,” Gabbard said in a statement.
The whistleblower’s records allege that a supervisor pushed intelligence officials to back the ICA’s findings in exchange for career advancement. The documents also highlight concerns about flawed intelligence methods, such as relying on open-source Russian media as “proof” of Russian support for Trump while disregarding foreign media from NATO allies that favored Hillary Clinton and criticized Trump.
According to the whistleblower, then-DNI James Clapper and other senior Obama administration officials privately dismissed the Steele dossier but ensured its inclusion in the January 2017 ICA.
The Steele dossier, compiled by British counterintelligence expert Christopher Steele, was opposition research targeting Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Its claims of collusion between the campaign and Russia have since been discredited.
Over the past six years, the whistleblower raised these issues with over a dozen government entities, including the office of Justice Department special counsel John Durham, the intelligence community inspector general, a U.S. senator, and other official whistleblower channels.
Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax Explained
The Trump-Russia collusion narrative emerged during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, alleging ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives to influence the election’s outcome. The controversy centered on claims that Russia, under Vladimir Putin’s direction, sought to bolster Trump’s candidacy through cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and direct coordination with campaign officials. These allegations gained traction with the release of the Steele dossier, a private intelligence report commissioned by political opponents of Trump.
The Steele dossier, authored by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, claimed that Russia held compromising information on Trump and that his campaign coordinated with Russian operatives. Initially circulated among political and media circles, the dossier’s unverified claims fueled widespread speculation. In January 2017, the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), ordered by President Barack Obama, concluded that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, though it stopped short of confirming direct collusion.
The dossier’s prominence grew when it was leaked to the public, prompting intense scrutiny of Trump’s campaign. The FBI used the dossier as part of its investigation into Russian interference, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane. However, the dossier’s credibility soon came under fire. Critics pointed to its reliance on unverified sources, including Russian contacts, and its funding by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign through the firm Fusion GPS.
In 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference concluded that there was no conclusive evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Mueller Report detailed Russia’s efforts to influence the election, including hacking Democratic Party emails and spreading disinformation, but found insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between Trump’s team and Russian operatives.
Further investigations, including those by the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed Russian interference but similarly failed to substantiate claims of direct collusion. The Steele dossier’s allegations, once central to the narrative, were increasingly viewed as unreliable. Reports surfaced that even senior intelligence officials, including then-DNI James Clapper, privately questioned the dossier’s validity while allowing its inclusion in official assessments.
The whistleblower’s revelations, as detailed in the documents released by Director Gabbard, further eroded the narrative’s credibility. The whistleblower alleged manipulation of intelligence to fit preconceived conclusions, including pressure to endorse the ICA’s findings. These claims suggested that political motivations may have influenced the intelligence process, casting doubt on the objectivity of the 2017 assessment.
Subsequent probes, including by Special Counsel John Durham, exposed flaws in the FBI’s handling of the dossier and its use in the Trump-Russia investigation. Durham’s 2023 report criticized the FBI’s verification processes and highlighted how unconfirmed information was used to justify surveillance of Trump campaign associates, such as Carter Page.
The combination of these findings has led to widespread skepticism about the collusion narrative. Many now view it as a politically driven effort to undermine Trump’s presidency. The lack of concrete evidence, coupled with revelations of biased intelligence practices, has shifted public and expert opinion, with critics arguing that the narrative was exaggerated to damage Trump’s legitimacy.
