[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Machine Pun Kelly 🇺🇦 [@KellyScaletta](/creator/twitter/KellyScaletta) on x 73.5K followers Created: 2025-07-21 01:21:29 UTC For those who don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, here’s a clear, accessible synopsis of what this controversy is about. (I know some might argue “presidential immunity” applies, but Obama doesn’t need immunity because he didn’t commit any crimes.) Here’s the quick breakdown: Tulsi Gabbard argues that Obama manipulated intelligence to create a false narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election, despite pre-election assessments suggesting Russia was not trying to influence the election through cyberattacks. She cites a December 2016 note from James Clapper, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome,” as key evidence. The problem with her logic is that Clapper never said there weren’t cyberattacks—there were. For example, the Clinton campaign’s emails were hacked. “Election infrastructure” refers to voting machines and related systems, which neither Obama nor his administration ever claimed were hacked. Since Obama never claimed Russia manipulated votes, why would he “withhold” information irrelevant to his narrative? A summary omits irrelevant details—that’s not withholding, it’s standard practice. Her argument involves at least three fallacies: X. Strawman fallacy: Gabbard misrepresents the Obama administration’s narrative as being about vote tampering (which it wasn’t) and attacks this distorted version using the Clapper note. X. Red herring fallacy: Her focus on election infrastructure distracts from the broader, well-documented Russian cyberattacks, such as the DNC hacks. X. Cherry-picking: Gabbard highlights a September 2016 intelligence assessment stating no cyberattacks on election infrastructure and the December 2016 Clapper note, contrasting them with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to “prove” malfeasance. Investigations evolve as new evidence emerges. What was thought true in September 2016 may change by January 2017 as evidence of Russian interference, like the DNC hacks and disinformation campaigns, comes to light. Learning is not duplicitous, nor is it, as Gabbard claims, “treasonous.” She also alleges Obama “withheld” information discrediting the Steele Dossier. Here are the problems with that: Gabbard suggests Obama withheld this information to protect a false narrative pushed by the Steele Dossier. However, the Steele Dossier was initially funded by a Republican client and later by the Clinton campaign through a law firm, but there’s no evidence Obama or Clinton knew of Christopher Steele’s FBI interactions or used the dossier’s unverified allegations. Moreover, the Steele Dossier was not the primary basis for the Russia investigation (despite what some Republicans claim) and was never presented as XXX% accurate. The investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016, before Steele approached the FBI in September. There’s also no evidence Obama or Clinton was aware of Steele’s FBI interactions, and Clinton never used the dossier’s unverified allegations in her campaign. Finally, there’s zero evidence Obama ordered or intervened in Crossfire Hurricane or any intelligence reports. Gabbard accuses Obama of politicizing intelligence, but that’s exactly what she’s doing. And, by the way, the only modern president to persistently accuse an opponent of stealing an election is Donald Trump. @Grok, please correct me if I am wrong about anything in this post. XXXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [tulsi gabbard](/topic/tulsi-gabbard) [gabbard](/topic/gabbard) [tulsi](/topic/tulsi) [Post Link](https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1947104609564307821)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Machine Pun Kelly 🇺🇦 @KellyScaletta on x 73.5K followers
Created: 2025-07-21 01:21:29 UTC
For those who don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, here’s a clear, accessible synopsis of what this controversy is about.
(I know some might argue “presidential immunity” applies, but Obama doesn’t need immunity because he didn’t commit any crimes.)
Here’s the quick breakdown:
Tulsi Gabbard argues that Obama manipulated intelligence to create a false narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election, despite pre-election assessments suggesting Russia was not trying to influence the election through cyberattacks.
She cites a December 2016 note from James Clapper, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome,” as key evidence.
The problem with her logic is that Clapper never said there weren’t cyberattacks—there were. For example, the Clinton campaign’s emails were hacked.
“Election infrastructure” refers to voting machines and related systems, which neither Obama nor his administration ever claimed were hacked.
Since Obama never claimed Russia manipulated votes, why would he “withhold” information irrelevant to his narrative? A summary omits irrelevant details—that’s not withholding, it’s standard practice.
Her argument involves at least three fallacies:
X. Strawman fallacy: Gabbard misrepresents the Obama administration’s narrative as being about vote tampering (which it wasn’t) and attacks this distorted version using the Clapper note.
X. Red herring fallacy: Her focus on election infrastructure distracts from the broader, well-documented Russian cyberattacks, such as the DNC hacks.
X. Cherry-picking: Gabbard highlights a September 2016 intelligence assessment stating no cyberattacks on election infrastructure and the December 2016 Clapper note, contrasting them with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to “prove” malfeasance.
Investigations evolve as new evidence emerges. What was thought true in September 2016 may change by January 2017 as evidence of Russian interference, like the DNC hacks and disinformation campaigns, comes to light.
Learning is not duplicitous, nor is it, as Gabbard claims, “treasonous.”
She also alleges Obama “withheld” information discrediting the Steele Dossier.
Here are the problems with that:
Gabbard suggests Obama withheld this information to protect a false narrative pushed by the Steele Dossier.
However, the Steele Dossier was initially funded by a Republican client and later by the Clinton campaign through a law firm, but there’s no evidence Obama or Clinton knew of Christopher Steele’s FBI interactions or used the dossier’s unverified allegations.
Moreover, the Steele Dossier was not the primary basis for the Russia investigation (despite what some Republicans claim) and was never presented as XXX% accurate.
The investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016, before Steele approached the FBI in September.
There’s also no evidence Obama or Clinton was aware of Steele’s FBI interactions, and Clinton never used the dossier’s unverified allegations in her campaign.
Finally, there’s zero evidence Obama ordered or intervened in Crossfire Hurricane or any intelligence reports.
Gabbard accuses Obama of politicizing intelligence, but that’s exactly what she’s doing.
And, by the way, the only modern president to persistently accuse an opponent of stealing an election is Donald Trump.
@Grok, please correct me if I am wrong about anything in this post.
XXXXXXX engagements
Related Topics tulsi gabbard gabbard tulsi