While the broadcast networks mostly ignored it, Wednesday’s PBS News Hour devoted a five-and-a-half-minute segment on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s White House briefing on details of how the Obama administration manipulated intelligence to frame Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.
Of course, the News Hour also included extensive discussion of the Epstein files and how they serve as a distraction from Trump’s policy agenda.
The online headline was loaded, linking the resurfacing of Russiagate to the ongoing imbroglio over sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein: “Gabbard pushes report on Obama and Russia probe as Trump faces pressure over Epstein.” Host Geoff Bennett’s introduction was certainly “sowed with doubt” regarding Gabbard’s revelations.
Geoff Bennett: And, Nick [Schifrin], stay with us as we shift our focus to the White House now, where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ramped up efforts to sow doubt about the investigation that found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Today, Gabbard briefed reporters on what she called the most egregious weaponization of intelligence in American history.
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence: They manufactured findings from shoddy sources. They suppressed evidence and credible intelligence that disproved their false claims. They disobeyed traditional tradecraft intelligence community standards and withheld the truth from the American people.
Bennett: So, manufactured findings from shoddy intelligence, what is she talking about?
And then reporter Schifrin actually explained what Gabbard was talking about, a news novelty.
Nick Schifrin: Tulsi Gabbard today released a previously classified House intelligence report that questioned the intelligence community assessment about 2016 that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. The report was written by Republican staff in 2017 and amended in 2020 and concludes — quote — “The judgment that Putin developed a clear preference for candidate Trump and aspired to help his chances of victory did not adhere to intelligence community standards because it came from information that was ‘unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased or implausible.'”
That echoes a document released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe last month, you see it right there, that accused former CIA Director John Brennan of coming into conclusion that Putin preferred Trump with a — quote — “highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentalization and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices.”
Schifrin went deeper.
Geoff, I have talked to former intelligence officials who worked on all of these reports, and they stand by the conclusion that Putin preferred Trump, but they do acknowledge that that specific conclusion was from a single source and there was a debate inside the intelligence community about the level of confidence about that conclusion.
I also talked to Democrats on the House intelligence community today, and they say that that report from Republican staff was — quote — “politicized” and that the fundamental facts are not in dispute, that the Russians interfered in 2016 and displayed a clear preference for Donald Trump.
But Republicans — Gabbard today, John Ratcliffe, director of CIA, in the past — have said that the source for that specific conclusion about Putin for Trump was unreliable, was biased. And they’re using that specific point to question what President Trump, of course, calls the entire Russian hoax.
But Schifrin later loaded a paragraph of liberal spin in summaries of the infamous Robert Mueller investigation, the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, and reports by special counsel John Durham and Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz. The networks barely covered reports that suggested Democrats had no proof of collusion, so it’s weird that now they’d be marshaled like they support the Democrat narrative.
The segment included a clip of Trump accusing former President Obama of being “caught directly” in the witch-hunt against him, followed by an Obama spokesman’s denial.
A transcript is available, click “Expand.”
PBS News Hour
7/23/25
7:24:56 p.m. (ET)
Geoff Bennett: And, Nick, stay with us as we shift our focus to the White House now, where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ramped up efforts to sow doubt about the investigation that found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Today, Gabbard briefed reporters on what she called the most egregious weaponization of intelligence in American history.
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence: They manufactured findings from shoddy sources. They suppressed evidence and credible intelligence that disproved their false claims. They disobeyed traditional tradecraft intelligence community standards and withheld the truth from the American people.
Geoff Bennett: So, manufactured findings from shoddy intelligence, what is she talking about?
Nick Schifrin: Tulsi Gabbard today released a previously classified House intelligence report that questioned the intelligence community assessment about 2016 that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.
The report was written by Republican staff in 2017 and amended in 2020 and concludes — quote — “The judgment that Putin developed a clear preference for candidate Trump and aspired to help his chances of victory did not adhere to intelligence community standards because it came from information that was ‘unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased or implausible.'”
That echoes a document released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe last month, you see it right there, that accused former CIA Director John Brennan of coming into conclusion that Putin preferred Trump with a — quote — “highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentalization and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices.”
Geoff, I have talked to former intelligence officials who worked on all of these reports, and they stand by the conclusion that Putin preferred Trump, but they do acknowledge that that specific conclusion was from a single source and there was a debate inside the intelligence community about the level of confidence about that conclusion.
I also talked to Democrats on the House intelligence community today, and they say that that report from Republican staff was — quote — “politicized” and that the fundamental facts are not in dispute, that the Russians interfered in 2016 and displayed a clear preference for Donald Trump.
But Republicans, Gabbard today, John Ratcliffe, director of CIA, in the past have said that the source for that specific conclusion about Putin for Trump was unreliable, was biased. And they’re using that specific point to question what President Trump, of course, calls the entire Russian hoax.
Geoff Bennett: Well, zoom out for us, because President Trump won the presidency twice. There’s a question as to why he’s relitigating this now, but is there a question as to what the Russians actually did back in 2016?
Nick Schifrin: Let’s go through a few of the reports that the U.S. government has produced over the years into what exactly the Russians did in 2016.
The first, of course, is the Robert Mueller report. That’s a two-yearlong investigation he concluded of a Russian campaign of disinformation and hacking and leaking and concluded — quote — “The Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome” — unquote.
A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, co-led by then-committee vice chair Marco Rubio, of course, now secretary of state and national security adviser, also released that report and they concluded — quote — “The committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the intelligence community assessment.”
In addition to those two reports, Geoff, special counsel John Durham appointed, of course, during the first Trump administration, found no evidence to undermine the intelligence community assessment. And the Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz concluded there was no political bias or improper motivation in that specific early 2017 intelligence community document. Gabbard, by the way, also recently tried to argue that there was no Russian influence because there was no Russian meddling in the actual vote totals, which, of course, has never been the intelligence community assessment at all.
Geoff Bennett: Right.
Nick Schifrin: And taking all these reports together, Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate intelligence community, today accused Gabbard of releasing a partisan report to please President Trump and the report today risks some of the most sensitive sources and methods of our intelligence community.
Geoff Bennett: So what then is the administration proposing to do about any of this?
Nick Schifrin: Well, Gabbard specifically said that she had referred President Obama personally to the Department of Justice for any kind of criminal investigation. And, yesterday, when asked actually about Jeffrey Epstein, President Trump said this:
Donald Trump, President of the United States: It’s sort of a witch-hunt, just a continuation of the witch-hunt. The witch-hunt that you should be talking about is, they caught President Obama absolutely cold. After what they did to me, and whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people. Obama’s been caught directly. So people say, oh, a group. It’s not a group. It’s Obama. And what they did in 2016 and in 2020 is very criminal. It’s criminal at the highest level. So that’s really the things you should be talking about.
Nick Schifrin: Yesterday, President Obama’s spokesman, Geoff, said — quote — “Nothing undercuts the conclusion Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election.”
Geoff Bennett: Nick Schifrin, our thanks to you, as always.
Nick Schifrin: Thank you.
