Gabbard Exposes Shock Emails In Russia Hoax - "We Have a Problem"

Disclaimer: The article may include the author's opinions.

Amid the headline-grabbing release of two conflicting reports regarding Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 election, an overlooked detail in Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s recent document dump has added a troubling layer to the story, an internal email exchange hinting at potential deception surrounding the controversial Steele dossier.

The 114-page release, published Friday, outlined how the intelligence community approached alleged Russian interference during the final weeks of the Obama administration. Initially, a Presidential Daily Brief from December 8, 2016, reportedly indicated little evidence of significant interference, with no measurable impact on the election outcome. Yet, this version was never delivered.

A few weeks later, however, a different assessment surfaced that presented a much more assertive narrative on Russia’s involvement, one that apparently started to take shape the day after the initial PDB was suppressed. Gabbard revealed that this sudden change was led by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

Within the lengthy annex of Gabbard’s release lies a cryptic yet telling email exchange between senior intelligence officials. The conversation, uncovered through a 2019 Freedom of Information Act request from Kimberly Hermann of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, pertained to the dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, a document known to have been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign as opposition research.

Despite widespread acknowledgment that the majority of Steele’s claims were never substantiated, elements from the dossier were incorporated into intelligence assessments and even cited in FISA warrant applications targeting members of Donald Trump’s campaign.

A September 2019 email from a redacted official within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed unease regarding the dossier’s involvement. The message began by citing logistical complications in reviewing all related emails, but soon pivoted toward more serious concerns.

The official, who had served as Deputy on the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) Cyber team and worked intermittently on election security since 2014, revealed that during their review of the unclassified version of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), no mention of the Steele dossier was found.

More concerning was the implication that, even though the official had clearance and a need to know, leadership would have purposefully excluded the dossier if it had been utilized in the confidential version without disclosure.

A follow-up response attempted to downplay the situation, suggesting it was standard practice for some material to remain restricted even among cleared individuals. Still, the implications lingered: had key officials been misled during a pivotal moment in U.S. electoral history?

Though much of the exchange remains heavily redacted, Gabbard included the email chain as part of the public release, a decision that may signal its relevance in ongoing scrutiny. With FBI Director Kash Patel expected to weigh in, further disclosures could shed light on the identities of those involved and the dossier’s concealed role in shaping intelligence narratives.

As past claims of Russian interference continue to be questioned, especially in light of mounting evidence of politically motivated decisions during the Obama era, this buried email may further reinforce long-held concerns from conservatives that intelligence assessments were manipulated to undermine President Trump’s legitimacy.