Obama Admin Allegations of Falsifying Intel on Trump-Russia Interference

Serious Allegations Against Obama Admin on Falsifying Intelligence

Following National Intelligence Director Gabard's declassification and release of evidence showing that Obama and his senior administration officials intentionally falsified intelligence to push the false narrative that Trump was compromised by Russia, Obama's team has entered full-blown 'damage control' mode.

Conflicting Reactions and Accusations

Obama issued a statement through a spokesperson responding to the recently released documents implicating the former president in a scheme designed to delegitimize President Trump's term. The statement reads, 'Out of respect for the office of president, our office doesn't usually dignify the constant stream of nonsense and misinformation emanating from this White House with a response. But these allegations are outrageous enough to warrant one. These outlandish allegations are absurd and a pathetic attempt to distract attention.' But Gabard hasn't backed down. On Wednesday, she released more damning evidence against the Obama administration, saying that it revealed how they 'fabricated an intelligence assessment in January 2017 that they knew was false, and peddled the lie that Putin and the Russian government helped Trump win the 2016 election.'

Potential Criminal Investigation and DOJ Involvement

Gabard claims that she will be submitting criminal charges against former President Obama to the Department of Justice. She said: 'We have and will continue to submit all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this matter. The evidence we have found and released directly indicates that this intelligence assessment was manufactured at the direction of President Obama. There is multiple evidence and intelligence that corroborates this fact.' U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi responded, saying the DOJ has formed a task force to investigate Obama and will take appropriate legal action based on the evidence Gabard disclosed.

Political Impacts and Potential Repercussions

The news comes as Trump and the White House continue to deal with controversy surrounding disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and the administration's handling of his case files. 'I'm not focused on that much,' Trump said of the Epstein case and urged media to cover what he called 'another witch hunt' — the alleged Obama plot to manipulate the 2016 election — 'That's treason.' Several documents released by Gabard show that Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, and others fabricated the 'Russia collusion' hoax, hid intelligence showing Putin was preparing for a Hillary victory, falsified findings from poor sources, violated CIA standards, and intentionally lied to Americans. Additionally, CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, and National Intelligence Director Clapper not only incorporated the 'Steele Dossier' into the 2017 ICA, but overruled some senior officials' warnings that the dossier was fake and shouldn't be used. Note: The 'Steele Dossier' claimed that Russia may have blackmailed Trump with liaisons with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel. Gabard also indicated that Obama ordered the intelligence community to create an intelligence assessment that they knew was false, promoting an artificial narrative with the goal of undermining the presidential legitimacy and power of President-elect Trump.

Analysis and Assessment

These developments raise significant questions about the use of intelligence in domestic politics. While these allegations are serious and warrant a thorough investigation, it's crucial to approach this information with caution and await the results of official investigations before drawing any definitive conclusions. Financial and business markets are generally influenced by political stability, and any undermining of trust in government institutions could lead to economic fluctuations. However, it's important to note that the impact of these events on the markets depends on multiple factors, including the credibility of the evidence and investor reaction to it. While we can analyze potential impacts, providing investment advice is beyond the scope of this discussion.