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.
Census and Gerrymandering: How the GOP Is Fighting Back
UPDATED - 8/15/25 7:55am
America is standing at the edge of a political earthquake. It’s not just about one executive order, one census, or one round of redistricting. What’s unfolding is the culmination of decades of partisan maneuvering, demographic shifts, and constitutional disputes (and the results could permanently change the balance of power in Washington).
At the center of the storm is a startling admission: the U.S. Census Bureau overcounted several Democrat-leaning states in 2020, while undercounting Republican-leaning states. According to the Bureau’s own post-enumeration survey, these errors handed Democrats an estimated five extra congressional seats (and the electoral college votes that go with them) at the direct expense of red states like Florida and Texas.
Even more frustrating to many Americans, the Bureau insists the “oops” must stand until the next census numbers are applied in 2032. That’s nearly a decade of political power built on faulty data.
Trump’s Bold Countermove
President Donald J. Trump has decided that’s unacceptable. On August 7, 2025, he instructed the Commerce Department to conduct a new, highly accurate mid-decade census (one that excludes illegal aliens from the population count used for congressional apportionment and electoral college allocation).
Trump’s rationale rests on both constitutional and practical grounds. The Constitution requires an “actual Enumeration,” not statistical guesswork, and certainly not a count that inflates the representation of states with large populations of non-citizens. Under this new approach, red states like Texas and Florida could gain multiple seats, while blue strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois could see their delegations shrink.
Analysts estimate that excluding illegal aliens from the count could shift up to 14 seats from blue states to red states. California alone might lose four House seats. Florida and Texas could each gain four. The ripple effects on the Electoral College would be seismic, potentially locking Democrats out of a 270-vote path even if they won every “blue wall” state.
The Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering
While Democrats howl that this is an “attack on democracy,” they’ve long played the very same game in reverse. In fact, some of the most egregious gerrymanders in modern history exist in deep-blue states:
Massachusetts: Republicans make up 36% of voters but hold zero congressional seats.
Connecticut: 42% Republican, zero seats.
Maine: 46% Republican, zero seats.
New Mexico: 46% Republican, zero seats.
New Hampshire: 48% Republican, zero seats.
Rhode Island: 42% Republican, zero seats.
Vermont: 32% Republican, zero seats.
Hawaii: 38% Republican, zero seats.
Delaware: 42% Republican, zero seats.
Even in states where Republicans do hold seats, the imbalance is stark:
California: 38% Republican voters, but just 9 of 52 seats (20.9%).
Illinois: 44% Republican voters, but only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%).
Maryland: 34% Republican voters, but just 1 of 8 seats (12.5%).
Oregon: 41% Republican voters, but only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%).
This disparity is no accident. Blue states have systematically drawn maps to wipe out Republican representation. Now that red states are returning the favor, Democrats are discovering they have no room left to retaliate… they’ve already maxed out their own partisan advantages.
Texas as the Flashpoint
The battle has been especially fierce in Texas. After Democrat lawmakers fled the state to block legislation, Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton moved aggressively. Arrest warrants were issued for runaway legislators, and GOP lawmakers openly discussed increasing Republican representation with each week Democrats refused to return.
Under the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” beyond federal court jurisdiction (meaning states can draw districts however they see fit). Red states are seizing that opportunity to counter decades of Democrat-drawn maps in blue territory.
The Bigger Picture
What’s happening now isn’t just about maps, or census methodology, or one executive order. It’s about a political realignment that could define American governance for a generation. By excluding non-citizens from the count and aggressively redrawing districts, Republicans could secure a structural advantage in both Congress and the Electoral College that Democrats would be hard-pressed to overcome.
Democrats have long argued these tactics undermine democracy. But as even some liberal commentators admit, they’ve been using the exact same tactics in their own states for years (and in many cases, more aggressively than Republicans ever did).
The irony is inescapable: the party that perfected the art of gerrymandering and census manipulation is now on the receiving end of its own playbook.
If the trends hold, the 2026 midterms could deliver a decisive shift in power… not just for the next Congress, but for decades to come.
Restoring Federalism: Repealing Selective Incorporation and Returning to the Founders’ Vision of State Sovereignty
Executive Summary
If constitutional originalists such as historian David Barton or jurists in the tradition of Justice Clarence Thomas could propose one constitutional amendment, it would be this:
"To repeal the doctrine of selective incorporation, thereby restoring the Bill of Rights to its original purpose: a restraint solely on the federal government, not the states."
The selective incorporation doctrine—derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—has enabled federal courts to impose nationalized standards on state governments, in areas ranging from religion and speech to criminal procedure and gun rights. Though seemingly protective of individual liberties, this doctrine has also eroded state sovereignty, upended local moral governance, and consolidated federal judicial supremacy—a direction wholly foreign to the Founders’ original design.
Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Yes, We Have the Evidence: Obama Officials Accused in Treasonous Coup Against Trump
In a bombshell report, conservative commentator Dr. Steve Turley claims that former President Barack Obama is at the center of a scandal that dwarfs Watergate, potentially marking one of the most significant political controversies in American history.
According to Turley, newly declassified intelligence documents (released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard) reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" orchestrated at the highest levels of government, implicating Obama himself.
Turley cites a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, featuring an AI-generated video symbolically depicting Obama’s arrest and imprisonment. While the video is not literal, Turley argues it reflects a growing sentiment that “the walls are closing in” on the former president. He describes the unfolding events as a “national scandal” with a paper trail leading directly to Obama—one that could become what Turley calls the “crown jewel” of Trump’s historic legacy.
AI Generated
The Allegations: A Coup in Motion
Turley’s central claim is based on over 100 declassified documents, which he says have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. According to Turley:
Before the 2016 election, every major U.S. intelligence agency (including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security) agreed there was no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign.
Despite this, Turley alleges that in December 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory, Obama ordered a coordinated effort to fabricate intelligence contradicting those findings.
This alleged effort involved senior officials such as:
FBI Director James Comey
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
CIA Director John Brennan
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Secretary of State John Kerry
National Security Adviser Susan Rice
According to Turley, this operation was intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, amounting to a “systematic creation of false intelligence.” Citing Tulsi Gabbard, Turley calls this a “treasonous” act that undermined the democratic process and triggered a constitutional crisis.
Beyond Partisan Lines: A Threat to Democracy
Turley emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue:
“It’s irrelevant whether you’re Republican or Democrat… What Tulsi is exposing represents a fundamental attack on the democratic process.”
He warns that the alleged actions went far beyond political maneuvering. They represented a direct assault on the legitimacy of a duly elected president and on the will of the American people.
Whistleblowers & the Call for Justice
Turley also claims that whistleblowers from within Obama’s administration are now coming forward, ready to testify. These individuals, he says, are preparing affidavits describing how federal institutions were weaponized against the American people.
Prosecutions and indictments are necessary, she argues, to restore trust in democratic institutions.
Turley agrees, framing this not as a matter of revenge, but of justice, ensuring that no future administration can misuse intelligence agencies for political ends.
Media Complicity & the Fight for Truth
Turley warns that the legacy media—which he labels as “complicit” in the scandal—may attempt to bury or discredit the story. However, he insists:
“The documents don’t lie.”
He predicts that within months, a major media figure might break ranks and expose the media’s role in covering up the scandal, further amplifying its national impact.
Final Word: A Populist Crossroads
In a broader appeal, Turley urges Americans to stay engaged:
He calls on citizens to demand accountability and stand with a populist movement that cuts across traditional political lines.
He stresses: “The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.”
As the Justice Department—now led by Pam Bondi, reviews the evidence, Turley promises to continue monitoring developments and keep his audience informed.
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.