Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's Director of National Intelligence (DNI), released docs that allegedly "prove" Barack Obama masterminded the Russiagate "hoax" as a coup against Trump. Gabbard's presser claims it's all there: Obama and his crew fabricating intel to kneecap Trump's 2016 win. But does it really "prove" anything? And if it does, what happens next — prosecutions, chaos, or just more circus? Spoiler: It's probably more theatre than takedown, but the implications could ripple globally.

The Release: What's in the Docs, and Gabbard's Big Claims

Tulsi Gabbard — former Democrat, now Trump's intel chief — hit the White House briefing room with a stack of declassified papers, including a long-buried House Intelligence Committee report from the first Trump term (circa 2017–2020, vaulted away by the CIA for nearly a decade). She calls it "irrefutable evidence" that Obama led a "treasonous conspiracy" to sabotage Trump before he even took office. The docs allegedly show Obama "manufacturing" an intelligence assessment with four key lies:

1.Vladimir Putin preferred Trump in 2016.

2.Russia actively helped Trump win.

3.Moscow had blackmail dirt on Trump (hello, Steele dossier).

4.The Trump campaign colluded with Russians.

Gabbard insists there was "no reliable information" backing these, and Obama knew it was bogus. She's already shipped the lot to the DOJ and FBI for "criminal implications," dodging direct calls for Obama's arrest but hinting hard: "The evidence... directly point[s] to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment."

This isn't Gabbard's first rodeo. Back in July 2025, she declassified similar memos claiming Obama "manufactured and politicized intelligence" for a "years-long coup." Those led to AG Pam Bondi forming a task force and grand jury probe. X is ablaze with MAGA cheers: "Arrest Obama now!" and shares of the article. Critics? Fact-checkers like FactCheck.org call it "misleading," arguing the docs cherry-pick old intel without new smoking guns. Lawfare notes it's "revisionist innuendo" — the files show Obama officials debating real Russian hacks, not plotting a hoax.

Do these docs "prove" Obama instigated Russiagate? From a conservative lens (Gateway Pundit's vibe), absolutely — it's the final nail in the "deep state" coffin. But objectively? They're a rehash of 2020 House GOP reports, declassified with Gabbard's spin. No fresh memos from Obama himself ordering fakes; more like timelines questioning the 2017 ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) on Russian interference. Mueller and Durham probes already debunked full "hoax" claims, finding real meddling but no Trump collusion. So, "proof"? No, more like ammunition for believers.

What Follows if It's "True"? Investigations, Division, or Dust?

Assuming the docs hold water (big if), here's the cascade:

1.DOJ/FBI Scrutiny: Gabbard's referral means AG Bondi's team (already probing via grand jury) could expand. Potential charges: Conspiracy, false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), or even sedition if framed as a "coup." But statutes of limitations (5–10 years for most) might bite — 2016 events are ancient.

2.Congressional Circus: House GOP could launch hearings, subpoenas flying. Senate? Slim chance with Dems blocking. Expect fiery soundbites, little legislation.

3.Media and Public Backlash: Fox/Truth Social amplify it as vindication; CNN/MSNBC dismiss as revenge porn. Polls show America split: MAGA base fired up, independents weary of endless probes.

4.Global Ripples: For Aussies, it could strain US alliances — AUKUS relies on stable Yank leadership. If it exposes intel manipulation, trust in Five Eyes erodes. Russia/China laugh, using it for propaganda.

But is it just more political circus?Yes! Russiagate's been litigated to death — Mueller, Senate reports, Durham (who found bias but no vast conspiracy). This feels like Trump's "revenge tour": Gabbard (once a Dem critic) weaponising DNI for score-settling. No real policy wins — just division, distracting from inflation, borders, or Iran tensions. Gateway even snarks "Don't hold your breath!" on prosecutions.

Could a Left Icon Like Obama Really Be Prosecuted?

Ah, the million-dollar question. Obama: Nobel winner, first Black prez, Lefty hero. Prosecute him? In theory, yes — no one's above the law (ask Trump, facing his own trials). If docs show criminal acts (e.g., directing false intel), charges could stick. Al Jazeera notes Gabbard's pushing for it, and Bondi's DOJ might indict.

But practically? Slim to none:

Political Blowback: Indicting an ex-prez sets a banana-republic precedent. Dems scream "witch hunt"; riots possible.

Legal Hurdles: Presidential immunity (post-Supreme Court rulings) covers official acts. Intel assessments? Arguably "core" duties.

Evidence Gap: Docs are secondhand; no Obama-signed "fake it" memo. Witnesses (Clapper, Brennan) deny wrongdoing.

Public Opinion: Obama's approval hovers ~50%; prosecuting him unites the Left, fractures the Right.

Historical Precedent: No ex-prez prosecuted (Nixon pardoned). Trump dodged his; Obama likely would too.

Wrapping Up: Truth-Seeking or Theatre?

Gabbard's drop revives Russiagate ghosts, but "proof" feels like confirmation bias for Trumpworld. If true, it demands accountability — but expect circus over justice. America's divided enough; this just deepens trenches. For you guys down under, it's a reminder: US stability matters to your backyard, with communist China a clear and present threat to you.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/tulsi-gabbard-releases-documents-that-prove-it-was/