This article was originally published by Willow Tohi at Natural News.
-
- VP Vance asserts Obama-era officials “defrauded” the public by politicizing intelligence to aid Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
-
- DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s disclosures reveal intelligence missteps, including exaggerating pro-Clinton claims while burying contradictory data.
-
- Special Counsel Durham’s 2023 report found no corroboration for Steele Dossier claims used to surveil Trump associates.
-
- Justice Department forms strike force to investigate potential crimes; grand jury probe into Obama officials underway.
-
- Vance links controversies to broader concerns over weaponized institutions undermining U.S. democracy.
When asked whether former Obama administration officials should face legal consequences for their roles in the Russiagate misinformation campaign, Vice President JD Vance wasted little time delivering his verdict: “You’re going to see a lot of people get indicted.” Speaking on Sunday Morning Futures on August 10, 2025, Vance cited recent disclosures by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and FBI Director Kash Patel as “unambiguous evidence” of systemic misconduct that weaponized U.S. intelligence to destabilize the Trump presidency. This confrontation over accountability implicates senior Obama-era officials, Republican dissenters within the intelligence community, and the foundational trust in American democratic institutions.
A pattern of fabrication: From campaign talking points to “intelligence”
Vance’s indictment predictions hinge on Gabbard’s July 18 declassification of documents showing Obama administration officials altered raw intelligence to align with Hillary Clinton’s electoral narrative. “They turned Clinton’s campaign talking points into intelligence,” Vance said, accusing agencies of systematically amplifying dubious claims while suppressing contradictory evidence.
Key among the alleged violations was misuse of Christopher Steele’s discredited Steele Dossier — a collection of unverified assertions about Donald Trump and Russian ties. Despite Special Counsel John Durham’s 2023 report finding the FBI “did not and could not corroborate” the dossier’s premises, Vance argues Clinton allies leveraged it to advance unfounded claims of Russian collusion.
FBI analyst Brian Auten’s 2022 testimony further underscored institutional failures, revealing the agency paid Steele $1 million to validate his claims but received no credible evidence. Yet, media outlets amplified the dossier’s conclusions, with outlets like CNN repeat-publishing unverified details long after internal FBI memos disavowed them.
The legal aftermath: DOJ strike force and grand jury probes
Justice Department prosecutors now grapple with mounting evidence of potential crimes, including obstruction of justice and fraud. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed last week a grand jury has been empaneled to investigate Obama-era officials, while a DOJ “strike force” reviews Gabbard’s documents for criminal referrals.
Critics, however, dispute the rush to judgment. Former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-DNI James Clapper defended their actions in a July op-ed, citing bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee findings that analysts faced “no politically motivated pressure.” Yet Vance dismissed such appeals, stating, “They laundered Clinton’s talking points. That’s not intelligence work—that’s sabotage.”
The House and Senate reports mentioned by Brennan and Clapper are now seen by critics as incomplete or misinterpreted. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), a ranking House Intelligence member, said in July, “Gabbard’s documents revealed layers of distortion we hadn’t even imagined before. This wasn’t oversight—it was orchestration.”
Fallout: Trust in intelligence compromised by the 2016 election
Vance’s comments extend beyond legal accountability to a broader critique of institutional legitimacy. He condemned claims Russia “meddled” with vote tallies as baseless, citing Gabbard’s disclosure that bipartisan House investigators found no evidence Moscow altered election outcomes. “The real threat was the intelligence community undermining the rule of law,” Vance said.
For Trump’s 2024 campaign, these developments amplify claims of a “deep state coup” against the former president. Yet the stakes transcend partisan scoring. Prof. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute noted in a recent analysis, “When intelligence agencies abet electoral agendas, democracy itself becomes a prisoner of propaganda.”
The shadow of accountability over 2020 and beyond
As VP Vance calls for accountability, historians may one day view the summer of 2025 as pivotal in exposing how political machinations nearly redefined U.S. democracy. The question now is whether justice will apply equally. Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush dismissed the probes as “a distraction,” but Vance warned sanctions must reflect “the gravity of what they did.”
For voters, the saga underscores why the 2024 presidential election matters far beyond policy debates. At its core, it’s a referendum on whether America’s institutions remain guardians of truth or tools of partisan warfare—a conflict whose resolution could shape the republic’s future long after November polls close.
Read the full article here