It’s true that Tulsi Gabbard released documents she claims show that Barack Obama attempted to interfere with the outcome of the 2016 election by promoting the “lie” that Russia supported Trump’s campaign. According to CNN, “The new allegations from Gabbard lean on assessments before the election and statements from Obama-era intelligence officials finding that the Russians did not alter the election results through cyber-attacks aimed at infiltrating voting systems.”
It’s also true that a 2020 review cast some doubt on aspects of the original assessment. The New York Times reported that the 2020 House review concluded most of the intelligence community’s 2016 judgments were sound—but noted the work had been rushed. A subsequent CIA tradecraft analysis echoed this concern.
However, in the same article, the Times also pointed out: “The [additional documents Gabbard] presented showed that the Obama administration was eager to quickly complete its work, but not that the intelligence agencies were altering their conclusions.”
Framing these documents as “jaw-dropping” or evidence of a “subversion of the people’s will” overstates their significance. The evidence largely reflects bureaucratic urgency, not a coordinated effort to falsify intelligence or manipulate election results.
