On Tuesday, the office of former President Barack Obama issued a rare public admonishment regarding claims made by the Trump administration. The allegations suggested that officials from the Obama administration had orchestrated a “treasonous conspiracy” against the current president. In response, Obama's office described these claims as “a weak attempt at distraction” aimed at diverting attention from more pressing issues.
On Friday, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, released declassified documents asserting that Obama and his national security team had “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to establish a foundation for a prolonged coup against President Trump. Gabbard's claims centered around the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had decided to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump.
However, the evidence presented by Gabbard has been criticized as weak and lacking substantial backing, as noted by fact-checkers from The Washington Post. Despite the flimsy nature of the claims, Trump embraced Gabbard’s findings as justification for potential criminal actions against his political opponents, including Obama.
Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama, articulated the former president's office's position in a statement. He emphasized that they typically refrain from legitimizing the “constant nonsense and misinformation” emanating from the White House. However, he stated that the latest “bizarre” and “ridiculous” allegations warranted a response. Rodenbush reaffirmed that nothing in the documents released by Gabbard undermines the widely accepted conclusion that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election, a fact supported by a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Numerous comprehensive investigations, including those conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, have established that Russia did indeed interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The aim of this interference was to undermine U.S. democracy, with indications that Putin preferred Trump to win the presidency.
Earlier on Tuesday, Trump publicly called for a criminal investigation based on Gabbard's findings, asserting, “it’s time to go after people,” specifically targeting Obama. Trump claimed that Obama had been “caught directly,” suggesting that evidence existed to implicate him in wrongdoing related to the 2016 election.
In a Tuesday interview with Fox News, Gabbard accused Obama’s office of deflection. She asserted that there is a substantial amount of intelligence and factual reporting that contradicts the statements from Obama’s team. Gabbard alleged that after Trump’s election, there was a concerted effort led by Obama to create documents intended to lay the groundwork for what she described as a years-long coup against Trump, thereby subverting the will of the American electorate.
The documents released by Gabbard's Director’s Initiative Group merged two distinct inquiries regarding Russian election interference: one related to potential cyberattacks on U.S. voting infrastructure and the other concerning social media campaigns and hacking of Democratic campaign documents. Gabbard's released documents included a declassified September 2016 study that indicated foreign adversaries, including Russia, were unlikely to manipulate vote totals through cyberattacks.
While Gabbard highlighted the potential for cyberattacks, previous investigations have established that the actual interference included divisive cyber media campaigns and hacking operations by Russian intelligence agencies, specifically the GRU and the SVR, which targeted the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
Rodenbush's statement represents a rare public rebuke from Obama’s team towards the Trump administration. Notably, when asked about a controversial video posted by Trump on his social media platform, Truth Social, a spokesperson for Obama declined to comment, indicating the unusual nature of the current friction between past and present occupants of the Oval Office.
Despite the tensions, Obama has generally refrained from becoming a prominent critic of Trump, opting instead to present a contrasting vision for the country. Recently, Obama remarked on Trump’s “weak attachment to democracy,” further highlighting the ideological divides between the two political figures.
