Explosive declassified documents, released by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, have exposed what she describes as a "treasonous conspiracy" by the Obama administration to undermine President Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Sourced exclusively from the intelligence community (not the Department of Justice (DOJ)) these documents reveal that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded there was no Russian interference in the 2016 election. Below is a detailed timeline of events, followed by an analysis under distinct subheadings, shedding light on this alleged conspiracy and its implications.
Timeline of Events
Pre-November 2016: Intelligence Community Consensus
All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security, consistently assessed that Russia lacked the intent and capability to influence the 2016 election through cyberattacks. Internal intelligence community reports documented no evidence of Russian interference in election infrastructure or vote manipulation.
December 8, 2016: Presidential Daily Brief Drafted
A Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) was prepared, stating: “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” This document, intended for public release, affirmed the intelligence community’s consensus that Russia did not alter the election outcome.
December 9, 2016: Secret White House Meeting
President Obama convened a closed-door meeting in the White House Situation Room with FBI Director James Comey, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Secretary of State John Kerry, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Despite the PDB’s findings, the group allegedly decided to suppress this assessment and pursue a contradictory narrative.
Post-December 9, 2016: Fabrication of Intelligence
Following the meeting, Obama administration officials reportedly ordered a new intelligence assessment that contradicted prior findings, relying on the discredited Steele dossier, funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Anonymous sources, presumably Obama officials, leaked false claims to The Washington Post and The New York Times, asserting Russian intervention to aid Trump’s victory.
January 6, 2017: Politicized Intelligence Assessment Released
DNI James Clapper released an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) claiming Russia intervened to help Trump win, ignoring earlier dissenting intelligence. This report, allegedly based on the Steele dossier, fueled media narratives and set the stage for the Mueller investigation.
2017–2019: Mueller Investigation and Its Fallout
The fabricated assessment underpinned Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump-Russia collusion, costing tens of millions of dollars. The 2019 Mueller report found no evidence of Trump campaign collusion but affirmed Russian interference efforts, aligning with the politicized ICA. This led to two impeachments and years of political harassment against Trump.
July 18–19, 2025: Gabbard’s Declassification and DOJ Referral
DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified over 100 pages of documents, including emails, memos, and intelligence assessments from 2016–2017. Labeling the Obama administration’s actions a “treasonous conspiracy,” she turned the documents over to the DOJ for potential criminal prosecution of Obama, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Kerry, Rice, and McCabe.
Intelligence Community’s Unanimous Finding
The core revelation from Gabbard’s declassified documents is the intelligence community’s consensus that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. All 17 agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and others) concluded before and after the election that Russia lacked the intent or capability to hack or alter election results. This finding, documented in internal reports and the suppressed December 2016 PDB, directly contradicts the narrative pushed by the Obama administration and amplified by legacy media for years.
Strategic Release to Avoid Lawfare Accusations
Gabbard’s decision to release these documents through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, rather than the DOJ, is a calculated move to sidestep accusations of prosecutorial misconduct or “lawfare.” By making the evidence public and referring it to the DOJ, Gabbard ensures transparency and shifts the responsibility to Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges. This approach deflects claims of political retribution, as the allegations originate from intelligence community findings, not a prosecutor’s office.
Legal Pathways for Accountability
The documents open several legal avenues for prosecution. Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States allows prosecutors to file charges in any federal district court, bypassing potentially biased Washington, D.C., juries. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 3237 permits venue selection in any district touched by the crime, such as New York or Virginia, where less partisan juries may be found. Crucially, there is no statute of limitations for federal treason, meaning figures like Obama, Comey, and Brennan could face charges for their alleged roles. However, military tribunals are not an option, as treason and related crimes are tried in civilian Article III courts, not military commissions, despite some online speculation.
Challenges in Securing Convictions
Despite the compelling evidence, convicting high-profile figures like Obama in Washington, D.C., courts is unlikely due to the city’s heavily Democratic jury pool. A 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which affirmed Russian interference but found no vote tampering or Trump campaign collusion, may also complicate public perception. To overcome these challenges, prosecutors could leverage multi-district venue options or focus on conspiracy charges to pursue justice in less partisan jurisdictions. A “nuclear option” of Congress reorganizing the D.C. federal court system, while theoretically possible, is politically unfeasible given the slim Republican majority.
Broader Implications and Public Response
These revelations, if substantiated, expose a deliberate attempt by the Obama administration to sabotage Trump’s presidency through fabricated intelligence, constituting what Gabbard calls an “attempted coup.” The documents undermine years of media narratives and political actions, including the Mueller investigation and Trump’s impeachments. Public reaction, as noted on platforms like X, reflects deep skepticism about D.C. courts’ impartiality, with calls for accountability resonating among Trump supporters. The truth, long obscured, now fuels demands for justice and a reckoning for the alleged misuse of intelligence community power.
Note: This article is based on the provided transcript and declassified documents cited from credible sources, including Turley Talks, The Guardian, Fox News, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Readers are encouraged to review primary sources for a comprehensive understanding.
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.
By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3
00:00 Introduction 02:03 Week 13 review 04:56 Our Current Education System 05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country 09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America 10:44 The Foundation of Law 12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence? 13:52 Benjamin Rush 15:44 What is Patriotism? 18:34 Summary of Workbook
Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.
I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.
What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.
🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence
As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.
Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.
🕵️♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)
That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.
That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.
Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.
Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.
🔹 Why Subpoena Them?
1. Establish the Record:
You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.
2. Indictment Requires Precedent:
Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.
In a quiet chateau nestled in the green hills of Auvergne, a boy was born into a name older than most nations. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier—known simply as Gilbert to those who loved him—would grow to be one of history’s most celebrated revolutionaries. But from the very start, Lafayette's world was one of contradictions.
He was born into nobility, yet surrounded by stories of poverty and loss. His father, a decorated grenadier, was killed by a British cannonball before Lafayette ever saw his face. His mother, devastated by grief, fled to Paris, leaving young Gilbert to be raised by his stern but kind grandmother in the countryside. She taught him duty, discipline, and stories of battlefield glory. Under the watchful eyes of abbés and aristocrats, Lafayette soaked in the values of the French Enlightenment. Reason, liberty, the rights of man—these became the drumbeat of his youth.
But knowledge alone doesn’t make a man wise.
From the halls of Paris to the salons of Versailles, Lafayette learned to charm and maneuver. He married Adrienne de Noailles, a fourteen-year-old girl from one of France’s most powerful families. At sixteen, Lafayette was rich, married, and well on his way to joining the king’s elite guard. But behind the courtly elegance, something restless stirred in his heart. He longed for purpose—glory, as he called it. The kind that would echo through time.
So when whispers of rebellion across the Atlantic reached his ears, he was enthralled. America, a land fighting for liberty against the British—the very empire that had taken his father—became an obsession. Even when King Louis XVI forbade it, Lafayette defied him, sneaking across the sea to join George Washington’s struggling army.
From a worldly point of view, it was heroic. A young man leaving behind wealth, a pregnant wife, and privilege to fight for strangers. But beneath the idealism, there was a flaw—a subtle one, but dangerous.
Lafayette believed that man could save himself.
Through reason. Through revolution. Through liberty unanchored from any higher truth.
He didn’t yet understand what the Bible makes clear: that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and that liberty without virtue is just another form of chaos. Lafayette loved the idea of freedom, but he lacked a framework that could keep that freedom from becoming an idol. He was, in many ways, a knight in search of a cause—but without a compass pointing to God's moral order.
While Lafayette crossed the Atlantic in search of glory, Adrienne was left behind in Paris, pregnant and alone. She received glowing letters—tales of cannons and courage—but little concern for her own trials. She had married a boy still chasing the ghost of a father he barely knew.
In America, Lafayette was welcomed… reluctantly. The Continental Congress had seen too many glory-seeking Europeans hoping to play general. At first, they dismissed him. But when Lafayette offered to serve without pay, and when they read letters of praise from Benjamin Franklin, they reconsidered. Lafayette was given the honorary title of major-general—though he would command no troops.
He met George Washington soon after, and an unexpected friendship blossomed. Washington, a man of discipline and restraint, took the fiery Frenchman under his wing. Lafayette found in Washington a father figure, and in the American cause, a sense of belonging.
But even as Lafayette fought bravely in battle—earning respect and even suffering wounds—he never stopped chasing applause. And back in France, Adrienne suffered silently, raising children alone, enduring gossip about Lafayette’s rumored mistresses, and using her influence to protect his reputation.
She loved him. He often forgot to love her in return.
The story of Lafayette was already being written in two parallel threads: the public hero, adored on two continents, and the private man, blind to the cost others paid for his ambitions.
Even his noblest efforts—his fight for liberty, his calls to end slavery, his dreams of global reform—were built on a foundation that was subtly cracked.
He believed, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, that humanity was basically good, that progress was inevitable, and that the right ideas could fix the world.
But history—and Scripture—tell a different story.
"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1)
Lafayette’s foundation was bold. But it wasn’t biblical.
And the storm was coming.
Let me know if you're ready for Act 2: Fallout and Fractures. It will dive into the French Revolution, betrayal from both sides, Adrienne’s suffering, and the unraveling of Lafayette’s ideals.
Act 2: Fallout and Fractures
The smell of smoke lingered in the Paris air. The Bastille had fallen. The people roared. The king trembled. And in the center of it all stood Lafayette—beloved by some, cursed by others, and no longer sure who he truly was.
Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Slavery, Union, and Constitutional Compromise: A Study of the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment (1860–1861)
Abstract
This article explores two major political proposals advanced in the final months before the American Civil War: the Crittenden Compromise (1860) and the Corwin Amendment (1861). Both efforts sought to preserve the Union through constitutional concessions on slavery. We examine their content, motivations, political support and opposition, and how they reflected (and ultimately failed to resolve) the irreconcilable tensions between North and South. Special attention is given to the evolving role of President-elect and later President Abraham Lincoln, whose principled opposition to slavery’s expansion shaped Republican resistance to compromise efforts. The article situates these proposals within a broader constitutional framework of federalism, natural rights, and the limits of amendment power.
I. Introduction
In the months following Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis. Southern states began seceding from the Union, fearing that a Republican administration would restrict or abolish slavery. As secessionist sentiment grew, Congress and national leaders proposed several last-ditch efforts to avoid civil war through constitutional compromise. Among the most notable were the Crittenden Compromise, introduced in December 1860, and the Corwin Amendment, proposed in early 1861. Though differing in scope and content, both proposals reflect the extent to which the federal government was willing to entrench slavery in constitutional law in hopes of maintaining Union.
II. The Crittenden Compromise
A. Background and Purpose
On December 18, 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky introduced a series of six proposed constitutional amendments and four congressional resolutions, collectively known as the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a member of the Constitutional Union Party, sought to calm Southern fears and avert secession by providing federal guarantees for slavery.
B. Main Provisions
The core elements of the compromise included:
A constitutional amendment reinstating the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′ N latitude), permanently prohibiting slavery north of the line and guaranteeing it south of the line in current and future U.S. territories (U.S. Senate Journal, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1860).
A prohibition on Congress interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.
A federal guarantee for enforcement of fugitive slave laws.
A requirement that future constitutional amendments could not abolish or interfere with slavery in slaveholding states.
C. Reception and Defeat
The Crittenden Compromise was broadly supported by Southern politicians and some Northern moderates, but strongly opposed by Republicans, including Lincoln, who rejected any compromise that would allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. Through backchannels and private correspondence, Lincoln discouraged Republican senators from supporting the proposal (Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 152).
The compromise ultimately failed in committee in January 1861, and its defeat accelerated Southern secession.
III. The Corwin Amendment
A. Introduction and Legislative History
In the aftermath of the Crittenden proposal’s failure and with several states having already seceded, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced a new constitutional amendment intended to reassure the South. The Corwin Amendment passed the House on February 28, 1861, and the Senate on March 2, 1861, just days before Lincoln’s inauguration.
The proposed text read:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” — Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1861)
B. Purpose and Scope
Unlike the Crittenden Compromise, which addressed slavery in territories, the Corwin Amendment focused exclusively on preserving slavery in existing states, permanently prohibiting Congress or any future constitutional amendment from interfering with state domestic institutions, including slavery.
It was a more limited proposal, intended as a symbolic assurance to slave states that the federal government would not abolish slavery where it existed, even under future administrations.
C. Lincoln’s Position
Though a longtime opponent of slavery’s expansion, Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:
“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” — Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)
Lincoln directed Secretary of State William Seward to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Some states, including Ohio and Maryland, ratified it, but the amendment never achieved the necessary approval from three-fourths of the states, especially as war broke out shortly after.
IV. Comparative Analysis
Feature
Crittenden Compromise
Corwin Amendment
Proposed
Dec 1860
Feb–Mar 1861
Proposer
Sen. John Crittenden (KY)
Rep. Thomas Corwin (OH)
Key Objective
Allow slavery south of 36°30′ in territories
Constitutionally prohibit federal interference with slavery in states
Lincoln’s View
Opposed
Supported (as peace gesture)
Status
Rejected in committee
Passed Congress; unratified
Amendment Nature
Multiple amendments and resolutions
Single proposed amendment
Historical Result
Failed to prevent secession
Superseded by Civil War and 13th Amendment
V. Constitutional and Originalist Considerations
A. Federalism and State Sovereignty
The Corwin Amendment affirmed the federalist structure of the Constitution, where states retained authority over domestic institutions, including slavery. Its logic aligned with the Madisonian view that powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states (see Federalist No. 45).
B. Limits on Constitutional Amendment Power
The Corwin Amendment attempted to shield certain subjects from future amendment. Although Article V allows for limitations (as with the equal suffrage of states in the Senate), many legal scholars debate whether any constitutional amendment can permanently bar future amendments. This raises complex issues about constitutional entrenchment.
C. Slavery and the Founding Vision
The Crittenden and Corwin proposals represent divergent paths in response to a growing national crisis. While the Founding generation accepted slavery as a temporary evil (e.g., Madison at the Constitutional Convention), these 1860–1861 efforts reflect a move to permanently constitutionalize an institution many of the founders viewed as incompatible with natural rights.
VI. Conclusion
Both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment reveal the lengths to which American politicians were willing to go to preserve the Union through accommodation of slavery. However, their failure also underscores the irreconcilability of a republic founded on liberty with a system built on bondage. Abraham Lincoln’s careful balancing act was opposing slavery’s expansion while tolerating its existence where entrenched, framed the constitutional limits of compromise.
With the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the era of compromise ended. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, would abolish slavery entirely, reversing the direction of both earlier proposals and reaffirming the Declaration’s principle that all men are created equal.
The Prophet of Progress: Woodrow Wilson's Road to Power and Ruin
Act I: Foundations and Fault Lines
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 into a deeply religious Southern Presbyterian family. His father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, was a respected minister and educator. His mother, Janet—called Jessie—was a devoted Scottish churchwoman. From the outside, the Wilson home seemed soaked in Scripture and tradition, but beneath the surface, a different foundation was quietly forming.
As a boy, “Tommy” Wilson was clever but struggled to read until age twelve—what today might be considered dyslexia. Still, he grew to admire ideas and institutions more than people. Though he spent his childhood in the Confederate South during the Civil War, the conflict seemed to leave little mark on him emotionally. His loyalties remained Southern, though, and he absorbed the white supremacist thinking that had gripped post-war Democratic circles.
Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Sign Up for free to see more from this community or subscribe to the Conservative TAKE for $2/month to support the Conservative TAKE for more interaction and exclusive content.