News

Legacy Media Scrambles to Defend Obama as Gabbard Releases Declassified Files

Published

9 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

Victory for Trump as Appeals Court Shuts Down Boasberg

Published

13 hours ago

April 15, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON — In a major legal win for the Trump administration, a federal appeals court has stepped in to halt an aggressive investigation into whether government officials should be held in criminal contempt over a 2025 deportation dispute.

On Tuesday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg committed a “clear abuse of discretion” by pursuing the inquiry. The decision effectively ends a year-long standoff between the judiciary and the executive branch regarding the administration’s controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove migrants.

The appeals court issued what is known as a writ of mandamus—a rare and powerful legal tool used to stop a lower court judge who has overstepped their authority. The 2-1 decision, led by Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, ordered that the contempt proceedings be terminated immediately.

“The district court has assumed an improper jurisdiction antagonistic to the Executive Branch,” the majority wrote in their 122-page opinion. They argued that Judge Boasberg’s investigation risked “improperly intruding” into high-level government decisions involving national security and foreign diplomacy.

Origins of the Boasberg Clash

The dispute began in March 2025, when Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) intended to stop the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. Despite the order, two planes carrying the migrants departed the United States.

The migrants, whom the administration identified as suspected members of the violent transnational gang Tren de Aragua, were subsequently held in a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Judge Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, grew frustrated when the administration failed to turn the planes around. He accused officials of acting in “bad faith” and eventually moved toward criminal contempt charges.

Why the Appeals Court Intervened

The D.C. Circuit majority found a fundamental flaw in the judge’s logic. For someone to be in criminal contempt, they must violate a court order that is “clear and specific.” According to Judge Rao, Boasberg’s original order failed that test.

Lack of Clarity: The court noted the original TRO did not explicitly mention “transferring custody” of the migrants, only their removal from the country.
Executive Privilege: The panel warned that Boasberg was attempting to “probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations” that are protected by the Constitution.
Supreme Court Precedent: The ruling pointed out that the Supreme Court had already vacated the underlying order that blocked the deportations, making Boasberg’s continued investigation unnecessary.

The ruling was not without its critics. Judge J. Michelle Childs, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued a blistering 80-page dissent. She argued that the majority had “trampled” on the authority of district judges to enforce their own orders.

“Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court’s order, that they did not commit contempt before contempt findings are even made,” Childs wrote.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represent the deported migrants, echoed this sentiment. Lead attorney Lee Gelernt called the decision a “blow to the rule of law,” stating that it suggests the executive branch can ignore court orders without consequence.

This ruling clears a significant hurdle for the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. While the ACLU plans to ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the panel’s decision, the current ruling effectively shuts down any immediate threat of criminal prosecution for officials like former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The White House, which has frequently characterized Judge Boasberg as biased, welcomed the news. In previous statements, the administration has maintained that the president has broad authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to secure the border and remove foreign threats during times of perceived national emergency.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

Mandamus Granted: The appeals court used an extraordinary measure to stop the lower court from proceeding.
Contempt Dropped: Government officials will no longer face potential criminal charges for the March 2025 flights.
Executive Power Reaffirmed: The court emphasized that judges cannot easily interfere with national security decisions.
Judicial Authority Limited: The ruling sets a high bar for judges seeking to hold federal officials in contempt over ambiguous orders.

This case serves as a landmark moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power and the role of the judiciary in overseeing immigration enforcement. As the administration continues its deportation efforts, the legal boundaries established by this ruling will likely shape future challenges in the federal court system.

Trending News:

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond in High-Stakes Defamation Case

News

Breaking!! Eric Swalwell Resigns From Congress Amid Mounting Sex Allegations

Published

2 days ago

April 14, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dramatic collapse of a once-promising political career, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) announced his resignation from Congress on Monday, April 13, 2026. The seven-term lawmaker’s exit comes after a weekend of explosive allegations involving sexual assault and misconduct that have sent shockwaves through both the Capitol and his home state of California.

The decision follows Swalwell’s withdrawal from the California gubernatorial race just one day prior. Once considered a frontrunner to succeed Governor Gavin Newsom, Swalwell saw his support evaporate almost overnight as details of the allegations became public.

The crisis began on Friday, April 10, when reports from the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN detailed a series of troubling accusations from multiple women.

According to the reports, the allegations include:

Sexual Assault: A former congressional staffer alleged that Swalwell assaulted her twice when she was too intoxicated to consent, once in 2019 and again in 2024.
Workplace Misconduct: The same former employee claimed Swalwell solicited sexual favors while she was under his direct supervision.
Inappropriate Messaging: Three other women came forward alleging that the Congressman sent unsolicited nude photos and sexual messages via Snapchat.
Abuse of Authority: One woman described a pattern of escalating sexual messages that she felt pressured to engage with due to Swalwell’s high-profile position.

While Swalwell has admitted to “mistakes in judgment” regarding his personal life, he has continued to forcefully deny the allegations of sexual assault, vowing to fight what he calls “false claims.”

Swalwell’s Swift Political Exit

The pressure on Swalwell reached a boiling point on Monday morning. The House Ethics Committee announced it had officially opened an investigation into whether the Congressman engaged in sexual misconduct with a subordinate.

At the same time, bipartisan calls for his removal grew louder. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) prepared a resolution for his expulsion, while high-profile Democrats, including Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Ruben Gallego, withdrew their support. Gallego, a long-time friend of Swalwell, stated publicly that he believed the lawmaker was no longer fit to serve.

In a statement posted to social media, Swalwell acknowledged that the threat of expulsion and the weight of the investigation had made his continued service impossible.

“I will fight the serious false allegations made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell wrote. “It’s wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress.”

Impact on the California Governor’s Race

Swalwell’s resignation and withdrawal have completely reset the 2026 California gubernatorial race. Before the scandal broke, he was leading many polls. Now, his departure leaves a massive vacuum in the Democratic field.

Voters will still see Swalwell’s name on the June primary ballot due to state deadlines, but his campaign has effectively ceased all operations. The focus now shifts to other leading Democratic contenders, including former congresswoman Katie Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who are scrambling to pick up Swalwell’s former donors and endorsements.

While his time in the House of Representatives is coming to an end, Swalwell’s legal troubles may just be beginning. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has confirmed it is looking into the 2024 assault allegation, which reportedly took place in New York City.

As of Tuesday morning, Swalwell had not provided a specific date for when his resignation would take effect. His departure marks one of the swiftest falls from grace for a national political figure in recent memory, ending a career defined by his roles in presidential impeachment trials and as a frequent voice on national security.

Trending News:

Trump Warns China as Vance Leads Peace Talks with Iran

News

Trump Warns China as Vance Leads Peace Talks with Iran

Published

4 days ago

April 12, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to Beijing, signaling a shift in U.S. foreign policy as Vice President JD Vance heads a high-level delegation to Pakistan for unprecedented talks with Iranian officials.

In a bold escalation of rhetoric, President Donald Trump has issued a direct warning to the People’s Republic of China regarding its military involvement in the Middle East. Speaking from the Oval Office, the President made it clear that any attempt by Beijing to supply weaponry to Iran would be met with severe consequences.

“China is going to have big problems—very big problems—if they decide to ship weapons to Iran,” Trump stated. “We are looking for peace, but we are also looking at the facts. You cannot play both sides of the fence when the stability of the world is at stake.”

The warning comes as intelligence reports suggest increased logistics cooperation between Beijing and Tehran. For the Trump administration, the message is twofold: a demand for Chinese neutrality and a demonstration of American leverage over global trade routes and sanctions.

Potential Consequences for China

The administration has hinted at several “levers” it could pull should Beijing ignore this warning:

Secondary Sanctions: Targeting Chinese banks and firms that facilitate arms transfers.
Trade Restrictions: Implementing further tariffs or export controls on sensitive technology.
Diplomatic Isolation: Working with allies to limit Chinese influence in Middle Eastern security frameworks.

The Islamabad Summit: A High-Stakes Peace Mission

While the President maintains a hardline stance toward external interference, a different scene is unfolding in Pakistan. Vice President JD Vance is currently leading a specialized U.S. delegation to Islamabad for a Saturday meeting with high-ranking Iranian officials.

This mission represents one of the most significant diplomatic gambles of the Trump presidency. The goal is clear: to establish a “path to peace” and de-escalate years of mounting tension that have brought the region to the brink of open conflict.

The Delegation Members

The composition of the U.S. team suggests a blend of traditional diplomacy and transactional deal-making:

Vice President JD Vance: Representing the administration’s “America First” foreign policy, focused on ending “endless wars” while maintaining U.S. strength.
Steve Witkoff: A trusted confidant of the President and special envoy known for his pragmatic approach to complex negotiations.
Jared Kushner: The architect of the Abraham Accords, returning to the diplomatic fold to leverage his existing relationships in the region.

Why Pakistan?

The choice of Pakistan as a venue is no accident. Islamabad has long maintained a delicate balancing act between its relationship with the United States and its neighbor, Iran. By choosing this neutral ground, both Washington and Tehran are signaling a willingness to step outside the usual frameworks of Western-led summits.

Sources close to the delegation suggest that Pakistan’s leadership has been instrumental in facilitating the logistics for this meeting, acting as a “quiet bridge” between the two adversaries.

The Iranian Perspective

Tehran’s decision to meet with the Vance-led delegation follows months of economic pressure and internal debate. While the Iranian leadership remains publicly cautious, the presence of figures like Kushner—who has a track record of facilitating regional agreements—indicates that the talks may move beyond rhetoric into the realm of tangible concessions.

Key discussion points are expected to include:

Sanctions Relief: Iran is seeking a pathway to re-enter global energy markets.
Regional Security: A cessation of hostilities involving proxy groups.
Nuclear Limitations: Reviving a framework for monitoring Iranian nuclear capabilities that satisfies U.S. security requirements.

Global Reactions and AI Search Trends

The news has sent ripples through global markets and digital spaces. International observers are questioning whether this “Carrot and Stick” approach—threatening China while talking to Iran—can produce a lasting equilibrium.

Market Impact:

Oil Prices: Crude futures showed volatility following the announcement, as traders weighed the possibility of a “peace dividend” against the threat of new sanctions on China.
Defense Stocks: Renewed interest in maritime security and surveillance technology as the U.S. monitors Chinese shipping lanes.

Challenges to the Peace Path

Despite the optimistic headlines, significant hurdles remain. Hardliners in both Washington and Tehran are skeptical of a “quick fix.” Furthermore, China’s reaction to Trump’s warning could redefine the success of the Pakistan summit. If Beijing feels backed into a corner, it may increase its support for Iran simply to counter American influence.

Conclusion: A New Era of Diplomacy?

The events of this Saturday could define the foreign policy legacy of the current administration. By combining aggressive economic threats against spoilers like China with direct, high-level engagement with adversaries like Iran, President Trump is attempting to rewrite the diplomatic playbook.

Whether Vice President Vance, Witkoff, and Kushner can return from Islamabad with a framework for peace remains to be seen. However, the world is now on notice: the United States is willing to talk, but it is equally prepared to act.