Three weeks after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard tried to discredit Donald Trump’s Russia scandal and started throwing around words like “treason,” the conspiratorial DNI has certainly succeeded in generating some conversation.
On the one hand, Republicans and conservative media outlets have seized on Gabbard’s accusations as proof that the entire controversy surrounding the president and Russia’s efforts in support of his 2016 candidacy is a “hoax.” On the other hand, every independent analysis of Gabbard’s findings have pointed in the opposite direction: There was no “hoax”; the underlying scandal remains real; and the DNI’s claims are “ludicrous.”
Officials from Democratic and Republican administrations urged the public to recognize Gabbard’s conspiracy theories as obvious nonsense, while intelligence officials launched a behind-the-scenes effort to discourage the DNI from even releasing her discredited claims in the first place.
Gabbard appeared this week on Fox News — a network that has embraced her latest allegations with considerable enthusiasm — and was asked a straightforward question.
“Now, director, you said there was ‘irrefutable’ evidence that [Barack Obama] was the mastermind of this intelligence manipulation and the perpetuation of the Russia hoax,” host Laura Ingraham said. “What is that irrefutable evidence for our viewers tonight?”
Gabbard responded by pointing to a National Security Council meeting, held in December 2016 — after Trump was elected and during the presidential transition process — that Obama called to discuss Russia’s operation. As part of that meeting, the Democratic then-president made some standard directives to intelligence officials. Gabbard added:
[V]ery specifically, they were tasked to create an intelligence assessment that detailed how Moscow tried to influence the election. Not ‘if,’ but ‘how.’ And this was the beginning of this manufactured intelligence assessment where they knowingly wrote things in this assessment that were false, and they knew they were false.
If Gabbard was under the impression that this made sense and her on-air comments constituted persuasive and “irrefutable” evidence that justified her bizarre allegations of treason, she was mistaken.
For one thing, we’ve known about that National Security Council meeting for years. It was discussed in some detail in the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, and as Media Matters’ Matt Gertz explained, the GOP-led panel didn’t find anything remarkable about Obama’s instructions.
On the contrary, the committee reviewed the assessment that Obama sought and concluded that it was “coherent and well-constructed,” featuring “proper analytic tradecraft,” and that its authors experienced “no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.”
But what about Gabbard’s claim that officials were told to put together an intelligence assessment that detailed “how,” not “if,” Russia targeted the election? That’s not scandalous either: By December 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies had already compiled voluminous evidence, collected over the course of months, documenting Moscow’s efforts.
The “if” question, in other words, had already been answered. At that point, there was no need to ask it again. To see this as “treasonous” is ridiculous.
Put another way, Gabbard appeared on Fox News — a network where she used to work as a paid contributor — and was asked to support her claims about “irrefutable” evidence. Given the opportunity, she presented a big nothingburger.
On the surface, it might not seem especially surprising that the national intelligence director has struggled to bolster her own baseless conspiracy theories, but let’s not forget that a great many Republican officials are heavily invested in the idea that Gabbard knows what she’s talking about. Indeed, Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed Justice Department prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation based almost entirely on Gabbard’s claims.
Given that the DNI can’t defend her own claims, maybe that ought to raise some red flags for Republicans who are relying on her?
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
