News

Legacy Media Scrambles to Defend Obama as Gabbard Releases Declassified Files

Published

9 months ago

July 23, 2025

VORNews

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

Trump Supporters Tell Pope to ‘Stay in His Lane’ as Tensions Rise Over Iran Conflict

Published

23 minutes ago

April 19, 2026

VORNews

Trump Supporters Tell Pope to ‘Stay in His Lane’

VATICAN CITY — A sharp divide has opened between the White House and the Holy See, as supporters of President Donald Trump increasingly call for Pope Leo XIV to “stay in his lane.” The friction follows the Pope’s outspoken criticism of the U.S.-led military operations in Iran, which began on February 28, 2026.

Critics within the MAGA movement argue that the pontiff—the first-ever American-born pope—is overstepping his spiritual authority by meddling in complex geopolitical security matters. Many supporters claim his appeals for peace inadvertently favor Islamic interests over the safety and strategic goals of the Christian West.

The tension reached a boiling point this month after Pope Leo XIV described the ongoing conflict as a “spiral of violence” and an “irreparable abyss.” In response, President Trump took to social media to label the Pope as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

For many Trump supporters, the issue isn’t just about the war itself, but about what they perceive as a double standard in the Vatican’s advocacy.

Geopolitical Meddling: Supporters argue the Pope does not understand the necessity of “Operation Epic Fury,” the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
National Sovereignty: There is a growing sentiment that the Vatican should focus on the souls of the faithful rather than attempting to dictate the military strategy of a sovereign superpower.
Safety Concerns: Critics point out that while the Pope calls for dialogue, Iran’s leadership has historically posed a direct threat to both Christian and Jewish communities in the Middle East.

Claims of Favoritism: Is the Pope “More Concerned with Muslims”?

One of the most controversial narratives emerging from the American right is the idea that the Pope’s humanitarian focus is skewed. Some high-profile supporters have voiced concerns that the Pope’s rhetoric seems more protective of Iranian interests than the American soldiers and Middle Eastern Christians caught in the crossfire.

This sentiment stems from several key points of contention:

Condemning Civilization Threats: Pope Leo XIV recently called Trump’s warnings against Iranian infrastructure “unacceptable,” leading some to argue he is shielding a regime that actively persecutes religious minorities.
Focus on Migration: Before the war, the Pope’s criticism of mass deportation efforts had already soured his relationship with the Trump administration.
Diplomatic Outreach: The Vatican’s long history of “cautious engagement” with Tehran is seen by hardliners not as diplomacy, but as a dangerous softening toward an adversary.

The Vatican’s Defense: The Gospel Above Politics

Despite the mounting pressure, the Vatican remains firm. Speaking from the papal plane, Pope Leo XIV stated he has “no fear” of the Trump administration. He maintains that his calls for peace are not political maneuvers but are rooted strictly in the Gospel.

“We are not politicians,” the Pope told reporters. “I will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace and dialogue. Too many innocent people have been killed, and someone must stand up and say there is a better way.”

Church officials, including Msgr. Peter Vaccari of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association has echoed this, stressing that the Church’s role is to protect all human life, regardless of borders or religion.

A Fragmented Faithful

The dispute is forcing American Catholics to choose sides. While many defend the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ,” others find themselves more aligned with the President’s “America First” doctrine.

Conservative commentators have noted that this is not a typical theological debate. It is a clash between two worldviews: one that prioritizes national security and the preservation of Western values, and another that views global peace through a lens of universal humanitarianism.

Summary of Key Criticisms from Trump Supporters

Strategic Naivety: Claiming the Pope’s call for a ceasefire allows Iran to regroup and continue its nuclear ambitions.
Silence on Persecution: Arguing the Pope is more vocal about U.S. airstrikes than he is about the long-term persecution of Christians within Islamic republics.
Interference: Viewing the Pope’s direct appeals to Congress and the public to “stop the violence” as an inappropriate intrusion into American domestic and foreign policy.

As the two-week ceasefire remains fragile, the war of words between Washington and the Vatican shows no signs of cooling down. For now, the “lane” the Pope occupies remains a contested territory in the hearts and minds of the American electorate.

News

Kash Patel Vows Defamation Lawsuit Over Bombshell ‘Drinking and Paranoia’ Report

Published

48 minutes ago

April 19, 2026

VORNews

FBI Director Kash Patel Defends Georgia Election Probe

WASHINGTON, D.C. — FBI Director Kash Patel has ignited a legal firestorm, threatening to sue a major national magazine after it published an explosive profile alleging he has struggled with alcohol abuse and crippling paranoia during his time leading the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The report, published Friday by The Atlantic, relies on accounts from over two dozen current and former officials. These sources paint a picture of a director who is often absent from headquarters, prone to “freak-outs” over his job security, and frequently intoxicated to the point of being unreachable by his own security detail.

Patel, 46, wasted no time hitting back. In a fiery post on X (formerly Twitter), the director labeled the article “fake news” and suggested the reporting met the legal standard for actual malice. “See you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court,” Patel wrote, calling the potential lawsuit a “legal layup.”

The Allegations: Drinking and “Breaching Equipment”

The most startling claims in the report involve Patel’s alleged personal conduct. According to sources cited in the exposé, Patel is a frequent guest at high-end clubs in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas, where he is reportedly known for “conspicuous inebriation.”

The report details several specific incidents:

Morning Disruptions: Meetings and morning briefings were allegedly rescheduled to the afternoon to accommodate Patel’s recovery from late-night drinking.
Security Concerns: In one instance, Justice Department officials claimed Patel’s security detail had such difficulty waking him behind a locked door that they requested “breaching equipment”—tools typically reserved for tactical raids—to ensure his safety.
National Security Gaps: Current FBI officials expressed fear that the director’s behavior leaves him vulnerable to exploitation or unable to lead during a sudden national crisis.

A Technical Glitch Sparks a “Freak-Out”

Beyond the drinking allegations, the report describes a climate of extreme paranoia within the FBI. Sources told journalists that Patel is “obsessed” with the idea that he might be fired by the White House, especially following the recent removal of former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

A key example provided in the article occurred on April 10, 2026. Patel reportedly encountered a technical glitch while trying to log into an internal FBI computer system. Believing he had been locked out of the building and fired, he allegedly entered a “frantic” state, calling allies and aides to announce his dismissal.

The issue turned out to be a simple IT error, but the “freak-out”—as witnesses called it—reportedly sent ripples of alarm through the administration.

Patel and the FBI Fire Back

The FBI’s communications office has moved quickly to debunk the claims. Benjamin Williamson, a top spokesperson for the bureau, issued a statement calling the article “completely false at a nearly 100 percent clip.”

Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shared a letter sent to the magazine before publication, arguing that the story relied on “vague, unattributed sourcing” and did not give the director enough time to provide a meaningful response.

Despite the controversy, the White House has publicly stood by the director. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated that Patel “remains a critical player” on the administration’s team, highlighting that crime rates have dropped during his tenure.

Why This Matters for the FBI

The timing of these allegations is particularly sensitive. The United States is currently involved in high-stakes military operations against Iran, a situation that many argue requires a steady and present hand at the FBI.

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” one unnamed official told reporters, referring to the possibility of a domestic terror threat occurring while leadership is distracted or incapacitated.

As Patel prepares for a potential legal battle, the rift between the FBI’s leadership and its career staff appears to be widening. Whether the director follows through on his threat to sue remains to be seen, but the “boozy” profile has already become a major flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the agency’s future.

News

Global Energy Markets Shaken as Iran Fires on Ships in Hormuz Strait

Published

2 hours ago

April 19, 2026

VORNews

TERRAN – The Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the world’s oil supply, has once again become a flashpoint of international conflict. Less than 24 hours after a brief reopening, forces from Iran have reportedly fired on commercial vessels and reinstated strict passage restrictions.

Global energy stability took a hit on Saturday as Iran reversed its decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This sudden U-turn comes after Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) gunboats allegedly opened fire on a commercial tanker, forcing several other ships to abort their transit. The escalation has reignited fears of a deepening energy crisis and potential military conflict between Tehran and Washington.

According to reports from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), the incident occurred roughly 20 nautical miles northeast of Oman. Two Iranian gunboats reportedly approached a tanker and opened fire without any radio contact. While the tanker and its crew were reported safe, the psychological impact on the shipping industry was immediate.

Industry monitors, including TankerTrackers.com, noted that several vessels—including a supertanker flagged in India—were forced to turn around. In a separate report, a container ship was also allegedly struck by an unknown projectile, causing damage to cargo but no injuries.

The Sudden Reversal By Iran

The decision to close the strait follows a period of intense diplomatic tension. Just Friday, Tehran had announced that commercial vessels could pass through the waterway. However, the mood soured after U.S. President Donald Trump stated that a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports would remain “in full force” until a new nuclear and security deal is reached.

Iran’s joint military command responded by declaring that control of the strait has returned to its “previous state” under the strict management of its armed forces. Tehran has been clear: as long as Iranian ports are blocked, the world’s most important oil corridor will remain restricted.

Key Takeaways from the Escalation:

Vital Chokepoint: Roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes through this narrow strait.
Military Action: IRGC gunboats used small arms fire against commercial tankers to enforce the closure.
Geopolitical Standoff: Iran demands the lifting of U.S. blockades; the U.S. demands a comprehensive new deal.
Global Impact: Oil prices are expected to rise as supply chains are disrupted once again.

Impact on Global Energy and Trade

The Strait of Hormuz is often called the “world’s jugular vein” for energy. With approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption transiting the area, even a temporary closure sends shockwaves through the market.

The current situation is particularly fragile because it coincides with a 10-day truce between Israel and Hezbollah. While mediators from Pakistan and other nations are still hopeful that a peace deal can be reached by the April 22 deadline, the return to hostilities in the water suggests that the path to peace is anything but smooth.

The Human and Economic Cost

Beyond the oil prices, the human toll of the wider conflict continues to mount. Recent fighting has claimed thousands of lives across the region:

Iran: At least 3,000 fatalities reported during recent hostilities.
Lebanon: Nearly 2,300 deaths.
Israel: At least 23 people killed.

For the shipping industry, the risk is becoming untenable. Insurance premiums for vessels in the Persian Gulf have skyrocketed, and some shipping lines are considering longer, more expensive routes around Africa to avoid the Middle East entirely.

All eyes are now on the upcoming diplomatic meetings. If a deal is not reached by Wednesday, many fear the temporary ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran could expire, leading to an even larger military presence in the region.

For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains a “no-go” zone for many commercial operators, and the world waits to see if diplomacy can win out over the sound of gunfire.