News

Legacy Media Scrambles to Defend Obama as Gabbard Releases Declassified Files

Published

8 months ago

July 23, 2025

VORNews

Legacy Media Moves to Defend Obama as Gabbard Releases Declassified Files

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified more than 100 pages of U.S. intelligence documents on July 18, 2025, sparking intense debate across American politics.

These documents, according to Gabbard, show that former President Barack Obama and his key aides pushed a narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election while ignoring their own intelligence agencies’ findings.

Gabbard described the actions outlined in the files as a “treasonous conspiracy” designed to discredit Donald Trump’s victory and disrupt his presidency. As the story gained traction, major media outlets appeared to minimize the impact or question the motives behind the DNI release, prompting discussion about media bias and the responsibility to report important news.

Inside the Declassified Files: Tracing the Events

A memo from Gabbard’s office outlines how members of the Obama administration worked together to promote the idea of Russian collusion, even though intelligence reports at the time suggested otherwise.

Documents show that, leading up to the 2016 election, agencies like the CIA and FBI believed Russia “probably [was] not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means.”

A President’s Daily Brief prepared in December 2016 by several agencies repeated that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”

After Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, however, the focus changed. On December 9, 2016, top officials met in the White House Situation Room. Attendees included Obama, DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and others.

According to the meeting record, they agreed to recommend sanctions on certain Russian intelligence personnel for their role in cyber activity related to the U.S. election, even though previous reports found no proof of vote tampering or serious interference.

Shortly after, an assistant to Clapper instructed senior intelligence officials by email to put together a new assessment “per the President’s request,” describing Russian methods and actions in the election.

This led to the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which, Gabbard claims, ignored earlier conclusions and drew from the disputed Steele dossier. The dossier contained unverified claims funded by the Clinton campaign, and some intelligence officials dismissed its contents as an “internet rumour.”

Still, it made its way into the ICA’s annex at the insistence of FBI Director James Comey, despite opposition from CIA analysts.

Gabbard accuses Obama’s team of altering intelligence for political reasons, stating that this set the stage for the lengthy Trump-Russia investigation that dominated Trump’s first term and affected U.S.-Russia relations.

She has sent the files to the Justice Department to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing, a step supported by current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who has ordered separate investigations into Brennan and Comey for their involvement.

Media Coverage: Downplaying and Questioning

Allegations described by Gabbard as a “years-long coup” would usually attract major media attention. Instead, mainstream outlets have often treated the story as a partisan attack. Network news review shows a trend of coverage that either casts doubt on Gabbard or largely ignores the evidence in the documents.

ABC News and NBC News did not mention the declassification on air up to July 20, as found by Grabien Media transcript searches. CBS News covered it briefly on “Face the Nation,” where anchor Margaret Brennan gave Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, a chance to dismiss Gabbard’s claims as “baseless.”

CNN mentioned the release twice, both times featuring Democratic lawmakers pushing back against the story but not addressing the actual content of the documents.

The New York Times called Gabbard’s report “politically motivated” and “error-ridden” in a July 19 article, mainly quoting Democrats like Himes who argue the release conflicts with the accepted story about Russian interference.

The Times leaned on a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, which found Russia meddled with social media and hacking campaigns but turned up no evidence of vote tampering. Gabbard’s files do not challenge this point directly, instead arguing that the collusion narrative was blown out of proportion.

NPR and The Washington Post framed Gabbard’s move as part of Trump’s wider goal to change the history of his election win. NPR’s July 22 report noted that the 2017 ICA focused on influence operations, not actual vote changes, and accused Gabbard of misrepresenting the intelligence community’s findings.

The Washington Post, which had received many intelligence leaks in 2016 and 2017, cited unnamed sources who said Gabbard’s release aimed to distract from Trump’s links to Jeffrey Epstein.

Multiple outlets also questioned Gabbard’s background in intelligence and her past remarks on Russia, suggesting her comments align with Moscow’s viewpoint.

The Independent and Rolling Stone called her appointment as DNI “controversial” and speculated on her loyalty, with Rolling Stone labelling her a “former Democrat turned MAGA” working to back Trump.

Instead of focusing on the content of the documents, many stories focused on Gabbard’s political history or Trump’s public claims about the Russia investigation.

Obama’s Response and the Media’s Echo

On July 22, Obama’s team released a statement dismissing Gabbard’s allegations as “bizarre” and “an obvious attempt at distraction.” He repeated that the 2017 ICA’s conclusions are still widely accepted and argued that the declassified files do not challenge the idea that Russia tried to shape U.S. public opinion.

Media outlets such as CNN, The Guardian, and The Hill quickly picked up Obama’s rebuttal, giving it top billing and pushing Gabbard’s evidence into the background.

This pattern of supporting Obama brings back memories of 2016, when news outlets often published leaks about Russian interference from anonymous intelligence officials. Gabbard’s files suggest those leaks, which began after the December 9 White House meeting, were part of a plan to reinforce the collusion claims.

Even now, many outlets continue promoting the same narrative, treating Gabbard’s release as a politically charged move rather than a matter for careful review.

What It Means for Trust and Accountability

The decision by major news media to avoid a close look at Gabbard’s allegations highlights big questions about the media’s watchdog role. If the declassified files are accurate, they point to top Obama officials using intelligence to affect an election outcome.

Stories with this level of seriousness deserve thorough reporting, but so far, large outlets have focused on dismissing or downplaying the issue. This approach shields Obama and his administration while deepening public concerns about bias in both media and intelligence circles.

Social media is now filled with posts from users like @bennyjohnson and @saras76, who accuse mainstream media of ignoring a “huge scandal” to shield Obama.

One viral post stated, “Tulsi Gabbard just hit Barack Obama with a knockout punch,” highlighting the public’s view that a “coordinated hit job” targeted Trump. While these posts don’t prove anything on their own, they do reflect a wider mood that the media is avoiding tough questions about those in power.

What Happens Next

The Justice Department now has the declassified files, and Gabbard insists that everyone involved must be investigated. She’s promising to see the process through, saying, “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Whether these allegations turn out to be the “treasonous conspiracy” Gabbard describes or a serious mistake by the outgoing administration, the public has a right to see a clear review of the evidence.

For now, the coverage by major news organizations suggests a reluctance to question the established story. By echoing Obama’s defence and playing down Gabbard’s statements, media outlets may fuel the sense that the press cares more about protecting certain figures than providing full transparency. As this issue unfolds, the press faces a choice—whether to dig into the facts or stick to defending the old narrative.

News

CNN Host Abby Phillip Forced to Apologize Over New York Attack Claims

Published

1 day ago

March 12, 2026

VORNews

CNN Host Abby Phillip Forced to Apologize

NEW YORK – CNN anchor Abby Phillip was forced to issue a public apology Wednesday after she misstated key details about an ISIS-inspired attempted attack in New York City. Phillip said on air that the incident targeted Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In fact, investigators said suspects threw improvised explosive devices into a crowd of anti-Muslim protesters gathered near Gracie Mansion, not at the mayor himself.

Phillip’s comment aired Tuesday on CNN NewsNight and quickly drew criticism online. Viewers and media watchers said the wording blurred the facts in a tense story already tied to political arguments about Islamophobia.

Before a commercial break, Phillip teased the segment by saying: “Two Republicans say Muslims don’t belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, says nothing, really, to condemn those comments.”

That line made it sound like the mayor was the target. Mamdani is New York City’s first Muslim mayor, so the framing also carried added weight in the broader debate over anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Phillip Issues a Clarification and Apology

Later that day, Phillip corrected herself on X (formerly Twitter). She wrote that her wording was wrong and that she missed the error before it aired.

“I want to correct something I said last night. The bombs thrown in New York City over the weekend by ISIS inspired attackers was thrown into a crowd of anti-Muslim protestors and not specifically targeted at Mayor Mamdani. That wording was inaccurate and I didn’t catch it ahead of time. I apologise for the error.”

Phillip did not share more details about how the mistake happened. Still, people familiar with TV production often point out that show teases come together quickly, sometimes minutes before air.

What Happened Outside Gracie Mansion

Authorities said the attempted attack took place Saturday during a protest outside Gracie Mansion in Manhattan. Anti-Muslim demonstrators were gathered near the mayor’s official residence when two suspects allegedly threw homemade IEDs into the crowd.

Officials said no one was hurt. Even so, the situation raised alarms because investigators described the devices as potentially deadly.

Key details released by law enforcement included:

Suspects: Emir Balat, 18, and Ibrahim Kayumi, 19, both US citizens from the Philadelphia suburbs.
Charges: Federal authorities charged both men with terrorism-related offenses. Investigators said one suspect yelled “ISIS” during the arrest. They also said the other admitted he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
Investigation: The NYPD and FBI labeled the case “ISIS-inspired terrorism.” One device reportedly ignited but did not fully detonate. Authorities said the explosives could have caused serious injury or death.
Motive: Court documents say the suspects wanted an attack bigger than the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, which killed three people.

Afterward, Mayor Mamdani condemned the attempt as “heinous” terrorism and praised first responders. At the same time, his early remarks avoided the phrase “radical Islamic terror,” a choice that echoed older political fights over language and blame.

Wider Fallout and Media Pressure

The on-air mix-up landed during intense coverage of Mamdani, a progressive Democrat who took office in January 2026. He is also described as the city’s youngest mayor in more than a century, plus its first Asian American and Muslim leader. Since his election, his rise and policy agenda have drawn both support and pushback, including remarks from some Republicans about Muslims in American public life.

CNN also faced criticism in related coverage of the New York terror attack. The network deleted a social media post and added an editor’s note to an online story after critics said the framing minimized what happened. CNN said the original presentation did not meet its editorial standards.

Phillip’s correction sparked mixed reactions. Some commentators demanded stronger accountability, including calls for her to be pulled off the air. Others treated it as a standard correction and said she handled it the right way by addressing it quickly.

Media analysts often warn that breaking-news pressure can lead to mistakes, especially when early details shift and politics heat up fast. Still, critics argue that terrorism coverage leaves little room for sloppy wording, because small errors can change how the public understands what happened.

Mayor Mamdani has not addressed Phillip’s remarks directly. He has continued to stress a focus on stopping extremism and hate across the city.

In the end, the episode shows how quickly a single line can reshape a story, and why accuracy matters most when reporting on terrorism and public safety.

Related News:

Karoline Leavitt Slams CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Over Killed U.S. Soldiers

News

U.S. Forces Hit and Destroy 16 Iranian Mine-Laying Boats Near the Strait of Hormuz

Published

2 days ago

March 11, 2026

VORNews

U.S. Forces Hit and Destroy 16 Iranian Mine-Laying Boats

Washington, D.C.- U.S. forces destroyed 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels near the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The strikes took place on March 10 and focused on boats officials said posed a near-term risk to commercial and military traffic in the area.

CENTCOM shared the announcement on X (formerly Twitter) and posted a video of the operation. The footage shows repeated precision hits on Iranian naval craft, with clear impacts and blasts. Several targets look stationary in the clips. The message from the U.S. is clear: it intends to keep shipping moving through the Strait of Hormuz, where about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil travels each day.

The operation followed strong public warnings from President Donald Trump, who said Iran must not mine the waterway. On Truth Social, Trump wrote that the U.S. had already “hit, and completely destroyed, 10 inactive mine laying boats and/or ships, with more to follow.” He also said any mines placed in the strait must be removed right away. Otherwise, he warned of “military consequences at a level never seen before.”

Those statements came as reports circulated that Iranian forces had begun placing naval mines. Soon after, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth backed up the White House position on X. He said CENTCOM was “eliminating inactive mine-laying vessels” with “ruthless precision” under the president’s direct orders. He added that the U.S. won’t allow “terrorists to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage.”

Key takeaways from the strike

Timing and scale: The strikes happenedon March 10, 2026, and hit multiple Iranian vessels, including 16 mine-layers.
CENTCOM confirmation: CENTCOM posted about the action on X and included video of the strikes near the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s role: Trump first reported 10 destroyed vessels, then later statements and reporting reflected a total of 16.
Why it matters: The action targets a mine threat that could endanger or slow commercial shipping in a major energy route.
Wider conflict: The strikes fit into broader U.S.-Iran fighting, with reports of thousands of U.S. strikes on Iranian targets since late February 2026.
Iran’s position: Tehran has threatened to block Gulf oil exports in response, raising concerns about a wider regional crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and remains one of the most tense hotspots in the Middle East. If traffic there gets blocked or tightly restricted, oil prices could spike fast, and the shock could spread through the global economy.

What the video shows and why the targets mattered

In the footage CENTCOM released, U.S. munitions hit several Iranian vessels one after another. Fires and secondary blasts follow some impacts, which suggests heavy damage. Officials described the targets as mine layers that could place naval mines in shipping lanes. Although some were labeled “inactive,” U.S. leaders treated them as a ready threat because they could move quickly once ordered.

U.S. forces have hit Iranian maritime assets in the region before. One often-cited example is the 1988 Operation Praying Mantis, when the U.S. Navy attacked Iranian platforms and vessels after a mine damaged a U.S. frigate.

By knocking out the mine-laying boats, the U.S. says it’s protecting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Officials have also signaled they may escort commercial tankers if threats continue. Meanwhile, energy markets have moved sharply as traders watch for the next step on both sides.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have promised countermoves, including threats to choke off Gulf oil routes. If disruptions drag on, analysts warn crude prices could climb quickly, and supply chains could face a new strain.

News

CBS Caught Making Deceptive EDIT to 60 Minutes Interview With Hegseth

Published

3 days ago

March 10, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C.– CBS is taking heat over an edit in its 60 Minutes interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The dispute centers on a segment that aired March 8, 2026, during the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran. In the broadcast, correspondent Major Garrett pressed Hegseth on U.S. foreign policy priorities.

On March 9, Megyn Kelly opened The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM by pointing to what she called a key change. She said CBS replaced Garrett’s original question, which referenced criticism from “America First” voices (including Kelly), with a version framed around Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In Kelly’s view, that swap changed the meaning of Hegseth’s answer and could have given viewers a different impression of what was being discussed.

The Interview Setting: The U.S.-Iran War and Hegseth’s Message

The 60 Minutes segment featured Hegseth, a former Fox News host who now serves as Defense Secretary under President Donald Trump. He spoke about the escalation tied to “Operation Epic Fury.” By the time the episode aired, U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian assets had entered their second week. During the interview, Hegseth stressed resolve, said more casualties were likely, and predicted Iran would eventually surrender.

CBS also posted a longer version of the interview online. That extended cut includes more on possible American losses, risks tied to Russia, and the administration’s wider goals.

What Kelly Says CBS Changed

Kelly said she compared the on-air segment with the longer online interview and found a major difference in one exchange.

Broadcast version (aired on 60 Minutes): In the edited segment, Garrett’s question (or narration around it) referenced criticism that Israel, or Netanyahu, was pulling the United States into conflict. Hegseth’s response then appeared to address concerns linked to Israel’s role.
Online extended version (full exchange): Garrett asked, “You mentioned America First. Some who identify with that movement, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, have said, from their perspective, this isn’t an America First campaign. Do you want to address that criticism?”Hegseth answered, “All I know is I’m in the room every day, and I see how President Trump operates and what he’s putting first, and it’s America, Americans, and American interests at every level.”

Kelly said the broadcast edit pushed Israel into a moment that, in the longer cut, had nothing to do with Israel. She argued that the new framing made it sound like Hegseth was defending Israel’s part in the war, instead of answering “America First” critics. Kelly called the change “deceptive” and said it looked like an attempt to “rehabilitate” public views of Israel’s involvement in the Iran fight.

“What kind of bulls–t is this?” Kelly reportedly said, accusing CBS of shaping the narrative through editing.

CBS Editing Choices Get Fresh Scrutiny

As of March 10, 2026, CBS had not released a formal statement addressing the claim. Still, the network’s decision to publish the extended interview online made it easy for viewers to compare both versions. That side-by-side access helped drive the backlash.

Kelly and other critics tied the issue to bigger arguments about media bias. Some also pointed to CBS News leadership under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, whom they described as having pro-Israel views. Kelly argued the edit fit an agenda that casts U.S. actions as tied closely to Israeli interests, even when the original exchange did not focus on that angle.

60 Minutes has faced similar complaints before. Past disputes have accused the program of selective editing in political interviews, which has kept questions about transparency alive.

Reactions and the Bigger Stakes

The clip dispute quickly spread across media outlets and social platforms.

Conservative voices praised Kelly and said the edit showed how mainstream outlets treat “America First” views.
Others defended CBS, saying edits are normal when a long interview must fit a tight broadcast window.
Some supporters of the administration said it looked like another attempt to weaken Trump’s foreign policy message.

Because the U.S. military campaign is active, the timing matters. Hegseth’s appearance was meant to project strength and certainty. Instead, the argument over editing shifted attention to media trust and how much framing can change what viewers take away.

Kelly ended by urging people to watch both versions. She stressed that, in her view, “The Q&A you saw never mentioned Israel at all,” and said CBS changed the question to make it about Israel.

What It Means for Media Trust

With audiences already split along political lines, even small shifts in wording can fuel bigger mistrust. When a network changes the framing of a question, it can look like agenda-driven editing, even if the rest of the answer stays the same. CBS’s release of the full interview gives the public a way to verify what happened. At the same time, it shows how a broadcast cut can reshape the story people think they heard.

As the Iran conflict continues, both the war itself and the coverage around it will draw more scrutiny. For now, the Hegseth interview has become another flashpoint in the fight over fairness, accuracy, and where editing ends and manipulation begins.