Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, spoke to the officials of the Obama administration officials on the heels of the latest document drop at the White House on Wednesday, in which the public was misled about the intelligence around Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
Gabbard recorded a rare appearance in the briefing room, an indication The White House has tried to maintain a headlines on the claims that his office has told about former President Obama and some of his intelligence officials.
There are five takeaments from briefing here.
House report provides fresh fodder
Gabbard presented with his office release First classified report From the House Intelligence Committee which was first drafts in 2017 and published in 2020.
Gabbard said that an important discovery was that around the 2016 elections, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “major interests” did not show the preference of a certain candidate, reducing the trust in the American democratic process. “
“In fact, this report suggests that Putin leaked and leaked back … Hillary Clinton was planning to compromise the content on Clinton before the election, instead it was planning to release it after the election, which Moscow was seen as an indispensable Clinton Presidency,” said Gabard.
The House report determined the CIA that “the principles of analytical standards were not followed” and said that Putin took action to benefit Trump, which was based on a sentence of a sentence of a sentence “based on a disgusting, unclear, and unnatural piece of a sentence of a sentence.
Gabbard argued that the report was particularly harmful to former President Obama, CIA director John Brainon, former FBI director James Comi and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
But critics quickly dropped the report out of step with the findings of the intelligence community and with the conclusions of a bilateral report from the Senate Intelligence Committee released in 2020, in which the two established that both attempted Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election and preferred to win Trump.
“Nothing in this partisan, there is a change in the document already scooted. Releasing this so -called report is just another careless act by a director of National Intelligence, which is desperate to please Donald Trump that he is ready to risk classified sources, beating our colleagues, and he is entrusted to give a lot of intelligence.
Gabbard suggested that Obama implicated
The name of former President Obama was described in Wednesday’s briefing about a dozen times as Gabard and other officials suggested that Trump’s efforts were directly involved in misleading the public.
Gabbard said, “We have referred to and all these documents will continue to refer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications,” when asked whether any information released on Wednesday tells Obama in criminal behavior.
“The evidence that we have found and we have released points directly to President Obama to lead the creation of this intelligence evaluation. There are several pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirmed the fact,” Gabbard said.
President Trump had accused Obama of treason a day earlier, who used to reprimand a rare public from the former President’s office.
Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbash said in a statement, “Outside the honor of the presidential office, our office usually does not give continuous nonsense and misinformation that exit the White House.” “But these claims are sufficient for a merit. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt in distraction.”
Anything widely accepted in the document released last week underlines that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election, but did not successfully manipulate any vote. These findings were included in a 2020 report in the report of the bipartished Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by the then Chairman Marco Rubio, who now serves as Trump’s State Secretary.
Officials answered questions about the results
Gabbard and White House Press Secretary Karolin Levit repeatedly dodged when Obama can be accused with or whether he should go to jail for something related to Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
“I am leaving criminal allegations for Doj. I am not a lawyer,” Gabbard asked if Obama is guilty of treason, despite in advance that his administration works have a “traitorous conspiracy” amount.
When he asked what could be alleged to be accused of the conspiracy of the conspiracy on the limits of boundaries, he would have also disintegrated in the Department of Justice.
Press Secretary Karolin Levitt repeatedly called for accountability for those who did wrong.
NBC News correspondent Kelly O’Donnell asked what would be meant to be given to the previous special lawyer, John Durham, when he could, Obama or his top colleagues were not accused, and the Supreme Court ruled the nationalists. Is broad immunity For acts while living in office.
“The President has made it clear that he wanted these documents to be rejected, wanted the American people to see the truth and now he wants those who end these lies and declare the scam accountable,” Levitt said.
“As the accountability looks like … It is in the hands of the Department of Justice, and we trust them to push this ball forward,” Lavit said.
White House Rubio, questions about Gabbard
Doubts about the allegations of the Trump administration about Russia’s documents have noted that the state secretary Marco Rubio, a staunch trump associate, was among the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee when it was Released your bipartisan report In 2020.
Democrats and other critics have pointed to the support of Rubio for those conclusions to question the new allegations of the administration and would not have raised them before by a person like the state secretary.
Leavitt bypassing the question on a large scale. He said that Rubio issued a statement in 2020, in which Russia’s efforts in the election and the work done by the FBI were described as “upset”.
Catalan Collins of CNN also asked whether Gabbard had released several reports about long -standing Russian intervention for Trump, which meant that he was a way to return to his good tombs after publicly criticized him last month.
“Only those who are suggesting that the director of National Intelligence will issue evidence to try to stand with the President, there are people in this room who constantly try to sow mistrust and anarchy among the President’s cabinet. And it is not working,” said Lewet.
Trump has believed the most in director Gabbard, he always has, he continues, “Levit said.
Trump was already Publicly criticized Gabard and said that he disagreed with his assessment about Iran’s discovery of Iran’s discovery in June as he attacked the Iranian nuclear sites.
Questions about politicization and weapons
Gabard has often spoken about his efforts to eliminate politicization from the intelligence community in his role as a director of National Intelligence, and the Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued that the government was made weapons in various criminal cases against the President.
But on Wednesday, the Intelligence Director faced several questions about whether he was involved in politicization by making serious allegations of wrongdoing against Obama officials, and whether the documents issued by his office faced various issues.
“I think it is a very derogatory attack on American people that deserve the truth,” Gabbard said, a question about a question is whether a referral of the former President was “a possible race”.
Gabbard similarly attacked Obama in response to a question whether she was accepting allegations whether Russia really hacked the election or changed the result with allegations of Russian efforts and sowed mistrust.
“I think it is an disagreement for American people that former President Obama’s office and others who are criticizing the transparency being distributed by releasing these documents,” said Gabbard. “They are making an dissatisfaction in an attempt to remove American people from their conviction in a historical scam.
