News
Legacy Media Scrambles 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.
Related News:
Tulsi Gabbard DC Sparks Firestorm Accuses Obama Admin of Fabricating Trump-Russia Intel
News
Trump and Iran Agree to Two-Week Pause After Pakistan Brokers Deal
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US President Trump and Iran struck a two-week ceasefire late Tuesday. They stepped back from major destruction right before a US deadline.
President Donald Trump shared the news after Pakistan stepped in with talks. He paused US attacks because Iran promised to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
This deal happened under two hours before Trump’s 8 p.m. Eastern Time cutoff. He had warned of bombing Iran’s power plants, bridges, and vital sites. Now tensions ease for a bit in a fight that killed thousands and messed up world oil since late February 2026.
A US-Israeli operation against Iran kicked off in late February. Nuclear talks failed first. Then Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz after strikes hit. Oil prices jumped because that route carries 20% of global oil. Shipping almost stopped.
Trump gave Iran clear warnings to reopen the Strait for safe traffic. His words got tougher lately. He said no deal by Tuesday night meant “complete demolition” of power plants and bridges. Without action, he added, “a whole civilization will die tonight.”
Iran turned down short breaks. They wanted a full fix, like ending sanctions and no more strikes. Tehran sent a 10-point plan via go-betweens. Trump called it a “significant step,” but not enough alone.
Markets shook as the deadline neared. Energy pros warned of shortages and high prices hitting Europe, Asia, and beyond.
Pakistan Steps Up for Quick Talks
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan made the deal happen. He asked publicly for a two-week delay so talks could work. Sharif talked straight with US leaders, including Vice President JD Vance.
Pakistan borders Iran and has old ties there. So Islamabad stayed neutral and hosted back-channel chats. They passed ideas between Washington and Tehran. People close to the talks said Sharif worked hard with many calls. His plan mixed urgent aid with big security fixes.
Trump posted on Truth Social: “Subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.”
This break lets teams tackle main problems like Iran’s nuclear work, proxy fights, and sanctions.
Main Points of the Deal
The pause lasts two weeks from Tuesday’s announcement. The US holds off strikes on power plants, bridges, and other key spots. Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz right away for safe global shipping. Pakistan keeps mediating. Turkey and Egypt might join in. Next, they build on Iran’s 10-point plan for a bigger agreement.
Both sides call it shaky. US leaders say any Iranian slip restarts the bombs. Iran pushes for real peace, not just a quick stop.
Experts see the window as a big chance. “This isn’t peace, but it stops a wider war pulling in others,” one Middle East pro said. He stayed unnamed because talks stay sensitive.
Oil prices dipped in late trading. Traders hope open lanes will steady supplies. Still, no one has checked full compliance yet.
Aid groups cheered the halt. More strikes meant blackouts for millions, bad water, and worse times for regular Iranians.
Big issues linger. First, check if the Strait stays open without Iranian blocks or proxy trouble. The US demands no nuclear weapons from Iran. Tehran says its program stays peaceful. Israel keeps hitting, and Iran backs Hezbollah, so layers add up. Hardliners in both capitals fight to give.
Trump repeats his aim: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” He sees the push as key for US safety and friends. He offers better ties if Iran shifts.
Iran blames the U.S. and Israel for the attacks. They want sanctions gone as an economic war.
World Responds Fast
China and Russia back talks but slam US threats as risky. They blocked UN moves on the strait before. Europe likes the pause and wants a quick, full calm for energy. Gulf countries quietly want the strait open for their oil sales. Pakistan’s Sharif called it a “victory for diplomacy” and offered more talks in Islamabad.
The UN boss urged both to use the time well and skip bad moves.
The two countries teetered before. Strains started with Iran’s 1979 revolution. Sanctions, proxy wars, and Trump’s pullout from the 2015 nuclear deal marked the years.
This round grew from max pressure, Israeli hits, and Iran’sStraitt shutdown. What began small turned into fights over power and oil flows.
Pakistan’s role shows new shifts. Muslim nations step up to stop bigger blowups.
Looking Forward: What the Next Two Weeks Might Bring
In the coming days, diplomats will likely focus on concrete steps:
- Monitoring and verifying the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
- Exchanging detailed proposals based on Iran’s 10-point plan.
- Addressing humanitarian corridors for food and medicine.
- Building confidence through small, verifiable gestures.
Success could lead to broader talks involving more parties. Failure, however, risks returning to the path of destruction Trump outlined so starkly.
For now, the world breathes a collective sigh of relief. A two-week ceasefire may seem short, but in the context of rapid escalation, it represents a critical off-ramp.
As one veteran diplomat put it: “Diplomacy often works best when the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. Tonight, both sides looked over the edge—and chose to step back, at least for now.”
The coming days will test whether this pause can translate into something more enduring. For millions affected by the conflict, that hope cannot come soon enough.
Sources include: White House statements, Pakistani updates, big news reports, and policy backgrounds. All from public info as of April 8, 2026.
Trending News:
Iran War Shatters China’s Economy, Wages Drop to 30-Year Low
News
Gen Randy George Ousted as Army Chief Amid Wartime Shakeup
PENTAGON — In a move that has sent shockwaves through the Department of Defense, Gen Randy George, the 41st Chief of Staff of the Army, has been forced to step down effective immediately.
The order came directly from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, marking the most high-profile departure in a sweeping administrative purge of the Pentagon’s top brass.
General George’s sudden retirement cuts short a four-year term that was originally set to run until 2027. His exit follows a pattern of rapid leadership changes under Secretary Hegseth, who has sought to reshape the military’s culture and leadership since taking office in early 2025.
In a final, poignant email sent to his staff and senior military leaders on Saturday, General George did not dwell on the politics of his removal. Instead, he focused on the soldiers he led for over three decades.
“It has been the greatest privilege to serve beside you and lead Soldiers in support of our country,” George wrote in the message, which was later confirmed as authentic by Pentagon officials. He urged his colleagues to remain “laser-focused on the mission” and to continue “relentlessly cutting through bureaucracy.”
However, it was his closing remarks that many observers viewed as a pointed farewell. George stated:
“Our soldiers are truly the best in the world—they deserve tough training and courageous leaders of character. I have no doubt you will all continue to lead with courage, character, and grit.”
The emphasis on “leaders of character” is being interpreted by some within the Pentagon as a subtle critique of the current political climate and the unconventional nature of his dismissal.
Why Was Gen Randy George Forced Out?
While the Pentagon’s official statement thanked General George for his “decades of service,” it offered no specific reason for his immediate ouster. However, sources close to the decision cite several key factors:
- Alignment with the New Vision: Secretary Hegseth has been vocal about wanting a leadership team that fully implements the Trump administration’s “warrior culture” and strategic shifts. Sources suggest there were concerns that George, a Biden-era appointee, was not moving fast enough to enact these changes.
- The “Biden Connection”: Before becoming Chief of Staff, George served as the senior military assistant to former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. This close association with the previous administration reportedly made him a target for replacement as Hegseth seeks to “remake” the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Cultural Clashes: The dismissal coincided with the removal of two other high-ranking officers: Gen. David Hodne and Maj. Gen. William Green Jr. (the Army’s Chief of Chaplains). These moves highlight a broader effort by Hegseth to overhaul military training and the role of chaplains within the force.
- The “Kid Rock” Incident: Tensions between the Army leadership and the Secretary’s office were recently strained when Hegseth personally intervened to reverse the suspension of helicopter pilots who flew a low-altitude salute over musician Kid Rock’s home. While officials say this wasn’t the “sole reason,” it highlighted the growing rift between traditional Army discipline and the Secretary’s command style.
Wartime Uncertainty
The timing of the shakeup is particularly notable. The United States is currently engaged in an intensifying conflict with Iran, with thousands of soldiers recently deployed to the Middle East. Dismissing a service chief with extensive combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan during active operations is rare in American military history.
“Disruptions of this nature are unusual during wartime,” noted one senior defense official. “General George was a career infantry officer who understood the complexities of the Middle East. Losing that institutional knowledge in the middle of a conflict is a significant gamble.”
What’s Next for the Army?
General Christopher LaNeve, who previously served as Hegseth’s military aide, has been named as the acting Army Chief of Staff. LaNeve is expected to provide the “leadership change” the Secretary has been seeking.
As the Pentagon transitions, the focus remains on the soldiers in the field. General George’s departure marks the end of an era for the “old guard” of the Joint Chiefs. Of the original leaders in place when Hegseth took over, only the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Space Operations remain.
Key Takeaways
- The Ouster: Gen. Randy George was asked to retire immediately by Pete Hegseth.
- The Reason: A desire for “leadership change” and a team aligned with the administration’s new vision.
- The Timing: Occurred during heightened tensions and military operations involving Iran.
- The Message: George’s final words stressed the need for “courageous leaders of character.”
Related News:
Russia Evacuates Workers From Iranian Nuclear Power Plant After Trump 48-Hour Ultimatum
News
Russia Evacuates Workers From Iranian Nuclear Power Plant After Trump 48-Hour Ultimatum
BUSHEHR, IRAN – The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East reached a fever pitch this week as Russia began a mass evacuation of its nuclear technicians from the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
This move follows a direct 48-hour “ultimatum” from U.S. President Donald Trump, who warned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to meet American demands or face devastating air strikes.
The evacuation of nearly 200 Russian specialists marks a significant shift in the regional conflict, signaling that Moscow—traditionally a key ally of Tehran—may be preparing for a major escalation.
On Saturday, the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, confirmed the departure of 198 employees from the Bushehr facility. The plant, located on Iran’s southern coast, is a critical piece of the country’s energy infrastructure and was built with extensive Russian assistance.
Recent reports indicate that the evacuation was not just a precaution but a response to immediate danger. A projectile fragment recently struck near the plant, killing a security guard and causing minor structural damage.
Key details of the evacuation include:
- Safe Passage: Workers are being transported via bus toward the Armenian border.
- Coordination: Reports suggest Russian officials may have coordinated the exit with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ensure the safety of the convoy.
- The “Worst-Case” Scenario: Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev stated that the situation near the plant is unfolding in a way that suggests high-intensity conflict is imminent.
Trump’s 48-Hour Warning: “Hell Will Reign Down.”
The exodus of Russian staff coincided with a blunt message from the White House. President Trump issued a 48-hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—a vital global shipping lane—and reach a new security deal.
In a social media post that sent shockwaves through global markets, the President warned that if the deadline passes without compliance, “all hell will reign down” on the IRGC and Iranian infrastructure.
Potential Targets for U.S.-Israeli Strikes
Military analysts suggest that if the deadline expires, the U.S. and Israel may target several strategic locations:
- Power Grids and Bridges: Aims to disrupt internal logistics and the Iranian economy.
- IRGC Command Centers: Designed to degrade the military’s ability to respond.
- Oil and Gas Facilities: Intended to cut off the regime’s primary source of revenue.
The Risk of Nuclear Contamination
The most concerning aspect of the tension at Bushehr is the risk of radioactive fallout. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that any direct hit on the nuclear facility would not just affect Iran. He stated that contamination could drift across the Persian Gulf, threatening the capitals of neighboring countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.
While the plant is currently operational, the loss of Russian technical expertise makes it harder for Iran to manage the facility safely under the stress of a potential bombardment.
Russia’s Strategic Retreat
Russia’s decision to pull its workers highlights the limits of its support for Tehran. While Moscow has benefited from Iranian military aid in the past, it appears unwilling to risk the lives of its citizens or engage in a direct military confrontation with the U.S.-Israeli coalition.
Observers note that by evacuating now, Russia is “hedging its bets”—preserving its technical assets while maintaining enough distance to avoid being drawn into a second high-intensity war alongside its domestic commitments.
As the 48-hour clock ticks down, the international community is watching for any signs of a diplomatic breakthrough. President Trump has signaled there is a “good chance” for a deal, but Iranian commanders have remained defiant, promising a “crushing” response to any strikes.
For now, the buses carrying Russian engineers toward Armenia are a somber reminder that the window for a peaceful resolution is closing fast.
Related News:
Russia Tells Iran to Scale Back Hostilities Toward the United States
-
China2 months agoChina-Based Billionaire Singham Allegedly Funding America’s Radical Left
-
Politics2 months agoCNN Delivers Stark Reality Check to Democrats Over Voter ID
-
News3 months agoMosque Set Ablaze in Iran a Citizens Revolt Against the Islamic Regime
-
Health3 months agoRFK Jr Introduces the New Food Pyramid to “Make America Healthy Again”
-
Politics2 months agoIlhan Omar’s Connections to Convicted Somali Fraudsters Surface
-
Politics3 months agoPresident Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest
-
Politics3 months agoTim Walz Exposed For Faking Financial Records In State Audit
-
News3 months agoFormer CNN Anchor Don Lemon Facing Charges Under Ku Klux Klan Act



