Table of Contents
We're back to talking about Russiagate again, and honestly, it feels surreal. After years of this story seeming to fade into the background, here we are with some pretty explosive new developments that could change everything we thought we knew about the Russia investigation.
Key Takeaways
- Tulsi Gabbard has formally referred Barack Obama for criminal charges related to his alleged role in orchestrating the Russiagate investigation
- The December 2016 White House meeting appears to be the smoking gun that tied together multiple aspects of the Russia probe
- New evidence reveals the 2017 intelligence community assessment was based on a handpicked team of just three CIA analysts, not independent intelligence
- The Steel dossier played a central role in shaping conclusions despite being dismissed as unreliable by two CIA analysts who refused to participate
- Evidence suggests the entire premise that Russia wanted Trump to win was fabricated, built on a single fragment of conversation that analysts couldn't even agree on
- Michael Flynn's prosecution may have originated from this same December 2016 meeting, potentially using Biden's legal theory based on 18th-century law
- The timing of new Epstein revelations alongside Russiagate disclosures suggests a deep state bureaucratic war is currently underway
- Ukrainian intelligence, essentially controlled by the CIA, provided much of the supposed "intelligence" about Russian activities
The December 2016 Meeting That Started It All
Here's what's fascinating about this whole thing - we're essentially watching a story unfold that investigative observers identified as suspicious years ago. That December 2016 meeting at the White House wasn't just another routine intelligence briefing. It was apparently the nexus where multiple threads of what would become the Russia investigation came together.
Think about the timing here. Trump had just won an election that literally everyone expected Hillary Clinton to win. The New York Times had her at a 97% chance of victory right up until election night. Even the Russians were reportedly shocked by Trump's win, according to the new evidence that's emerged. Yet somehow, we're supposed to believe they had this master plan all along to get him elected?
At this December meeting, several critical decisions were apparently made. First, there were discussions about "unmasking" various individuals who had been caught up in intelligence surveillance. This wasn't controversial at the time - it was reported extensively. But what's interesting is how Susan Rice later published what seemed like a deliberately evasive record of this meeting.
The meeting also appears to have been where discussions about Michael Flynn began in earnest. Flynn, who was set to become Trump's national security adviser, had those now-famous phone conversations with the Russian ambassador. The media went crazy with stories about these calls, claiming Flynn had made promises about sanctions that later turned out to be completely false.
But here's where it gets really interesting - there was apparently discussion at this very meeting about prosecuting Flynn using a legal theory based on an 18th-century law that has never really resulted in any successful convictions. And according to what's being revealed now, it was reportedly Biden who, as a practicing lawyer, actually came up with this obscure legal approach.
The Intelligence Community Assessment: A House Built on Sand
The January 2017 intelligence community assessment has always been treated as this definitive, authoritative document that proved Russian interference in the 2016 election. What we're finding out now completely undermines that narrative, and it's honestly pretty shocking when you dig into the details.
Instead of being the product of America's entire intelligence apparatus working together, this assessment was apparently put together by just five handpicked CIA analysts selected by John Brennan. But here's the kicker - two of those five analysts took one look at the evidence and basically said "this is nonsense." They refused to have anything to do with the final assessment because there simply wasn't enough evidence to justify the conclusions that Brennan wanted.
So what we ended up with was an "intelligence community assessment" written by exactly three people. Not the CIA, not the FBI, not the NSA working in concert - three analysts who were willing to go along with predetermined conclusions. That's not how intelligence analysis is supposed to work, ever.
The evidence they based their conclusions on was laughably thin. The entire assertion that Russia wanted Trump to win and Clinton to lose was built on what's described as "a fragment of a conversation from a human source." We're not told much about this source, but apparently there was some brief comment that "Putin was counting on Trump winning."
But get this - even the three analysts who ultimately signed off on the assessment couldn't agree on what those words actually meant. They had one fragment of a conversation that they couldn't even interpret consistently, and they built an entire narrative about Russian election interference around it.
The Steel Dossier's Hidden Role
One of the three big lies that Tulsi Gabbard has highlighted is the claim that the Steel dossier wasn't used as a source in the intelligence community assessment. This has always been a sensitive point because the dossier was largely discredited fairly early on, filled with salacious and unverifiable claims.
What's now coming to light is that the Steel dossier actually played an instrumental role in forming the conclusions of the entire assessment. The two CIA analysts who refused to participate in the assessment apparently looked at the dossier and basically said it was garbage. They wanted nothing to do with an intelligence product that relied on such questionable material.
But Brennan and the three analysts who went along with him apparently used the dossier anyway, despite knowing it was unreliable. This is a massive problem for several reasons. First, it means the foundational document of the entire Russia investigation was built partly on information that the intelligence community knew was suspect. Second, it suggests that the conclusion came first, and then analysts worked backward to find evidence that would support it.
That's not intelligence analysis - that's propaganda production. Intelligence professionals are supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not start with a desired conclusion and then cherry-pick information that supports it.
The Michael Flynn Trap
Michael Flynn's case has always seemed particularly troubling, and what's emerging now makes it look even worse. Flynn had completely legal conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition period. This is normal - incoming administrations typically reach out to foreign counterparts to establish relationships.
But somehow these conversations became the basis for a criminal investigation. The FBI recorded the calls, which is standard procedure for communications involving foreign officials. However, when FBI agents interviewed Flynn, they didn't show him the recordings. There's a whole tangled story around this interview that has never been fully explained.
What's particularly disturbing is that the prosecution of Flynn appears to have been discussed at that same December 2016 White House meeting. The legal theory they used was based on an 18th-century law that has virtually never been successfully used to secure convictions. It's an obscure piece of legislation that most lawyers would never think to apply in a modern context.
The fact that Biden, with his legal background, reportedly suggested this approach raises serious questions about whether Flynn was being specifically targeted using the most creative legal theory they could come up with. It looks less like legitimate law enforcement and more like a deliberate attempt to find some way, any way, to prosecute someone in Trump's orbit.
The Russian Motive That Never Made Sense
Here's something that's always bothered people who looked closely at this story: the alleged Russian motive never actually made sense. We're supposed to believe that Russia desperately wanted Trump to win and Clinton to lose, but all the evidence suggested that everyone, including the Russians, expected Clinton to win easily.
The Russians actually had far more damaging material about Hillary Clinton than anything that was ever published through WikiLeaks or anywhere else. If they really wanted to damage her campaign, they had much more effective ammunition they could have used. But they didn't use it, which raises obvious questions about whether they were actually trying to influence the election at all.
The whole theory that Russians were behind the DNC email leaks is also looking increasingly shaky. These were emails that showed how the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had essentially rigged the primary process against Bernie Sanders. But the technical evidence for Russian involvement in these leaks has always been questionable, and it's looking even more doubtful now.
If you're trying to help Trump win, why would you focus on emails that primarily hurt Clinton with progressive Democrats who weren't likely to vote for Trump anyway? The strategy doesn't make sense unless your real goal was to create general chaos and division, not to elect a specific candidate.
The Ukraine Intelligence Connection
One of the most disturbing revelations is how much the CIA was apparently relying on Ukrainian intelligence for its assessments about Russia. Think about this for a second - you're trying to understand what's happening in Moscow, so you ask Ukraine, which has been in an increasingly hostile relationship with Russia, to provide your intelligence.
What could possibly go wrong with that approach? It's like trying to get objective information about a family dispute by only talking to one side's most bitter relatives. Ukrainian intelligence services have their own agenda when it comes to Russia, and that agenda doesn't necessarily align with providing accurate, unbiased intelligence to the United States.
But it gets worse. We now know from reporting in major outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post that Ukrainian intelligence was essentially being run by the CIA. So the CIA was basically laundering its own intelligence through Ukraine and then presenting it as independent confirmation from foreign sources.
This is a textbook intelligence failure. You're supposed to get independent verification from multiple sources with different perspectives and motivations. Instead, the CIA appears to have created a circular system where they were essentially confirming their own assumptions using sources they controlled.
Signs of a Deep State War
What makes all of this even more intriguing is the timing of these revelations. Just as Tulsi Gabbard is releasing information about Obama's potential role in Russiagate, we're also seeing stories about Trump being named in Epstein files. The Wall Street Journal article about Trump and Epstein came out almost simultaneously with the Russiagate disclosures.
This looks like classic bureaucratic warfare. Different factions within the permanent government are trying to gain advantage over each other by selectively releasing damaging information. Each side probably has dirt on the other, and they're using it strategically to protect themselves or damage their opponents.
When these kinds of bureaucratic battles get really intense, as they appear to be now, everything else tends to freeze up. The agencies involved become so focused on their internal conflicts that they stop doing their actual jobs effectively. People who have been in government for a long time recognize the signs, and we're definitely seeing them now.
The FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice are probably experiencing massive internal turmoil as different factions try to position themselves for whatever comes next. There are likely extraordinary levels of worry and fear as people realize that information they thought would stay buried is starting to come to light.
The Bigger Picture
What we're witnessing feels like the beginning of a much larger reckoning. For years, people who questioned the official Russiagate narrative were dismissed or ridiculed. But the pieces are starting to fall into place in exactly the way that skeptics predicted they would.
The December 2016 meeting is looking more and more like the moment when a sitting president and his administration decided to use the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus to investigate and undermine an incoming president. That's a serious allegation, but it's increasingly supported by documentary evidence.
If Tulsi Gabbard is talking about criminal proceedings, she presumably has legal advice suggesting there's a real case to be made. As any prosecutor will tell you, you don't go public with criminal referrals unless you have evidence that goes well beyond what you're showing publicly. The really serious material has to be held back for due process reasons.
What we've seen so far may just be the tip of the iceberg. There are still unanswered questions about figures like George Papadopoulos, Professor Mifsud, Alexander Downer, and Stefan Halper. The role of British intelligence in all of this hasn't been fully explored. The connections between the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe are still being untangled.
We're only at the beginning of getting to the bottom of what really happened during those crucial months in late 2016 and early 2017. But what's already clear is that the official story we've been told for years is starting to crumble under scrutiny. The question now is whether there will be accountability for what appears to have been a massive abuse of power at the highest levels of government.
The fact that we're back to discussing Russiagate after all these years shows just how significant these revelations really are. This isn't ancient history - it's a story that's still unfolding, with potentially enormous implications for how we understand American politics and governance.
