From Obama to CNN: How the liberal media helped facilitate the ‘treasonous conspiracy’ about Russian collusion

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released a treasure trove of evidence revealing how former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet members had, as many long suspected, apparently “manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.”

Both before and after the 2016 election, the understanding among intelligence officials appears to have been that Russia had likely not interfered, particularly by using cyber means, to influence the outcome.

Gabbard revealed, however, that before this conclusion could be delivered to the American public, the Obama White House seemingly intervened to set an alternative narrative — a narrative largely based on the Steele dossier, a political opposition research report paid for in part by the Clinton campaign, which the intelligence community knew to be devoid of credibility.

‘They weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.’

This false narrative, which was initially fed piecemeal through leaks to the liberal media and then officially advanced through a reworked intelligence assessment published on Jan. 6, 2017, served “as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened U.S.-Russia tensions, and more,” Gabbard said.

The success of what Gabbard characterized as a “treasonous conspiracy” was largely reliant on the participation of the liberal media, whose assistance took on various forms but in some cases was as simple as framing unnamed partisan sources from the previous administration not only as credible but noble.

For instance, in March 2017, the New York Times explained away Obama officials’ eagerness to push the Russian collusion narrative before President Donald Trump took office not as an attempt to “make an excuse for their own defeat in the election,” as then-White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, but rather as a heroic effort to protect legitimate intelligence from obfuscation or destruction:

Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration. At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

This explanation was followed paragraphs later by the claim that Obama directed none of the efforts.

RELATED: ‘Prosecuting Obama’: Trump makes shocking statement as he commends Gabbard for bombshell evidence release

 Photo by Saul Loeb – Pool/Getty Images

One month prior, Trump — whose transition team emphasized early on that the intelligence agencies alleging Russian interference were “the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction” — called the Russia narrative a “scam.”

“You can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it,” Trump said during a Feb. 16, 2017, press conference. “In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.”

The Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, among the publications that made good use of the reworked intelligence assessment, leaned on the apparently Obama-skewed document when insinuating that Trump’s remarks at the press conference were false.

The Washington Post, which was among the biggest media proponents of the hoax, readily and routinely leaned on the input and framing of fierce Trump critics, including those apparently involved in the manufacture of the Russian collusion hoax, such as ex-CIA Director John Brennan.

In its long-standing effort to portray Trump as guilty and defensive, the paper also tracked how many times the president and those in the White House denied Russian collusion.

‘The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.’

Unhinged Trump critics such as Anne Applebaum, the writer who smeared as propagandists early proponents of the pandemic lab-leak theory and wasted ink last year imagining parallels between Trump and various 20th-century dictators, kept Washington Post readers’ hope alive that they were getting closer to “direct evidence” of collusion, while over at CNN commentators worked as if it there were proof that Russia interfered to get Trump elected.

RELATED: Ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s bad year could get a lot worse: ‘Maybe they have to pay a price for that’

 Photographer: Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Former CNN editor at large Chris Cillizza suggested in a 2018 piece that Trump’s refusal to play along with the hoax was a likely sign that Moscow had compromising information on the president. This, for Cillizza, made more sense than the notion “in Trump’s mind [that] any talk of Russian interference in the election is an attempt to undermine the ‘brilliant campaign’ (his words) he ran in 2016 and somehow invalidate his victory.”

Days later, CNN’s Marshall Cohen identified “10 ways Trump has strayed from his own intelligence agencies on Russian meddling” — a piece that now serves to memorialize the media’s misplaced faith in the intelligence community and to vindicate Trump’s skepticism.

While the newly released documents from the DNI both salt the remains of the Russian collusion hoax and justify Trump’s use of the term “fake news” in reference to numerous publications, the documents could prove far more impactful for those who constructed the false narrative. After all, Gabbard referred the documents to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.

“These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate,” Gabbard wrote.

The director of national intelligence added, “The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!