“Treasonous conspiracy” unleashed by Obama’s team to overthrow Trump, says Gabbard

• Intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard declassifies documents implicating Barack Obama’s administration in fabricating the 2016 “Russian collusion” narrative to undermine Trump.
• Obama and aides allegedly ignored pre-election assessments that Russia lacked hacking capability, instead engineering false intelligence to sabotage Trump’s presidency.
• Key figures like Comey, Brennan and Clapper allegedly participated in a “coup-like” plot, now facing criminal scrutiny.
• Critics dismiss findings as partisan, but Gabbard insists accountability will restore public trust in democracy.
• Revelations revive and escalate the ongoing debate over intelligence ethics and political overreach in post-Trump America.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard dropped a political bombshell Friday, releasing over 100 documents that she claims irrefutably link former President Barack Obama and his national security team to a “treasonous conspiracy” to fraudulently accuse Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign of colluding with Russia. Gabbard’s team revealed that Obama’s intelligence chiefs abandoned unanimous pre-election findings affirming Russia lacked the capability to hack U.S. elections, opting instead to create inaccurate intelligence accusing Moscow of subverting the election in Trump’s favor.

Gabbard characterized this as a “years-long coup” designed to destabilize Trump’s presidency, undermining the Electoral College’s verdict. “These manufactured documents were not just politicized intelligence—they sought to steal democracy itself,” she said on Fox News, adding that Obama’s 2016 post-election orders to “set a time bomb” of false accusations constituted a betrayal of the Constitution.

The culprits: Obama’s lieutenants orchestrated the scam

Central to Gabbard’s report is a classified September 12, 2016, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) stating Russian cyber capabilities posed no credible threat to vote tallies. Despite this, documents show Obama’s team—including former FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper and National Security Adviser Susan Rice—advanced falsified claims of sustained Russian election hacking.

The plot deepened when Obama allegedly forced subordinates to pursue unfounded “collusion” theories even after leaked emails revealed no damning evidence. This allegedly set the stage for the Mueller Probe and years of turmoil for Trump’s White House. Gabbard accused Comey of misleading the public, stating, “He turned intelligence assessments into conspiracy theories to fit a preordained outcome.”

Critics countered, alleging Gabbard was peddling “dangerous lies” to downplay Russian disinformation tactics. House Intelligence Committee’s Jim Himes called the disclosures “a [sleight of hand],” citing bipartisan 2017 Senate findings that Russia actively sought to tilt 2016 in Trump’s favor via social media. Gabbard, however, insists her focus on the fabricated hacking narrative exposes a critical effort to weaponize agencies against a President.

The fallout: Accountability, exposure of the Deep State

Attorney General Pam Bondi has pledged a full investigation into possible conspiracy charges, potentially extending legal liability back to Obama himself. Gabbard’s team has also tasked Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s successor with revisiting Durham’s botched probe, which cleared Trump but failed to address systemic corruption in the FBI’s Russia work.

Former Trump officials remain divided. Some hailed the revelations as overdue justice, while others dismissed them as theatrics echoing past “baseless” claims. Retired General Michael Flynn, once targeted by the FBI under Obama, called the findings “surreal,” acknowledging, “The truth hurts even those who knew it.”

Truth decay: Is democracy at stake?

Gabbard’s disclosures reignite debates over whether U.S. intelligence agencies can be trusted under any administration. Her focus on critical issues—including narrative corrections and calls for accountability—emphasizes a broader struggle for constitutional survival. She argues, “If we don’t prosecute those who weaponized their power, nothing stops this from happening again—no matter who sits in the Oval Office.” This sentiment underscores a profound concern that unchecked authority could enable future administrations to manipulate information, silencing dissent and eroding democratic safeguards. Gabbard’s stance positions the situation not merely as a political conflict but as a pivotal moment for preserving liberties and ensuring governmental transparency.

This incident underscores the deepening distrust in mainstream political figures and traditional institutions, as evidenced by their willingness to employ manipulative tactics to secure or maintain power. Such actions further erode public confidence, particularly among younger generations who are increasingly disillusioned with systems they perceive as corrupt or unaccountable. The scandal also shines a light on the growing skepticism of young adults—many now eligible to vote—toward leaders who prioritize self-interest over transparency. Meanwhile, mainstream media often perpetuates biased narratives of such events, unlike alternative information sources that strive to present an unfiltered, truth-centered perspective. It is time for citizens to demand greater accountability and honesty from their leaders while seeking out independent platforms that prioritize factual discourse over orchestrated misinformation.

The road ahead: Truth and accountability or more political theater?

Gabbard has vowed to release additional texts next week, including whistleblower testimony and evidence of U.K. collusion in disinformation efforts. Her success hinges on transforming political lightning into prosecutorial thunder—a daunting task requiring cooperation from agencies with ties to Obama.

For now, the nation watches, weighing whether this is a moment of long-overdue reckoning or just another chapter in America’s endless cycles of partisan blame. As Gabbard said, “The only way to rebuild trust is if every player gets their day in court—if the chips ever fall right, this could be a watershed for democracy.”

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

NYPost.com

RT.com