Former President Barack Obama issued a rare and pointed rebuttal on Tuesday evening in response to President Donald Trump’s explosive demand for a criminal investigation into his 2016 campaign team's role in promoting the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
White House spokesman Patrick Rodenbush, speaking on Obama’s behalf, called Trump’s allegations “bizarre” and “outrageous,” asserting that none of the newly released documents undercuts the long-established conclusion that Russia attempted to influence but did not rig the 2016 election.
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” Rodenbush said.
“But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.” In a statement that encapsulated the tone of the rebuttal, he added, “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
Citing documents declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier last week, Trump used the revelations as a springboard to lay blame on Obama himself.
As he put it from the Oval Office, where he was joined by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, “It would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper, the whole group. Brennan. They were all there in the room.”
Rodenbush dismissed that line of attack, emphasizing that the broader intelligence framework remains intact. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,” he said, adding, “These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then‑Chairman Marco Rubio.”
By highlighting the bipartisan nature of the Intelligence Committee’s assessment, Rodenbush aimed to reinforce the credibility of the widely accepted view that foreign meddling did occur—but without altering any vote totals.
In his Oval Office statement, Trump did not mince words. “President Obama, it was his concept—his idea. But he also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton,” Trump asserted.
He went on to reprise his longstanding attack on the Steele dossier, which had been funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie.
“They spent $12 million to Christopher Steele to write up a report that was a total fake report,” Trump said. “It was made-up fiction. They used that — now, the one thing they weren’t able to do was … get the press to run it before the election.”
He went on to claim that news organizations regarded the dossier as unreliable, noting that it was only published publicly “a couple of months after the election.” Trump labeled it “a disaster—all lies, all fabrication, all admitted fraud.”
Trump and Gabbard offered a revised narrative that echoes the original Crossfire Hurricane investigation, with added emphasis on the influence of political forces. According to their account, here’s how the timeline unfolds:
-
July 28, 2016: CIA Director John Brennan briefs President Obama on a briefing from a foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, suggesting the campaign had planned to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” As Brennan’s notes put it, “We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED].”
-
The information was subsequently forwarded from the CIA to the FBI via what was referred to as a “Counterintelligence Operational Lead,” with the subject line “Crossfire Hurricane.”
-
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was later appointed to take over the FBI’s investigation, which ultimately concluded in March 2019 that there was no criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
-
Months later, John Durham was named special counsel to probe the origins of the investigation itself. His report confirmed that the FBI “failed to act” on signs that the FBI narrative may have been influenced or manipulated by the Clinton campaign.
Trump also highlighted that FBI Director Kash Patel has initiated an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. In the Oval Office, Trump stated, “Comey and Brennan are currently under criminal investigation, launched by FBI Director Kash Patel.”
Meanwhile, Gabbard has filed a criminal referral with the Department of Justice, pointing to what she characterizes as a “politicization” of intelligence and accusations that senior Obama administration figures “manufactured” claims to build the Russiagate narrative.
She specifically named Obama, CEO personnel like Susan Rice, James Clapper, and Andrew McCabe, along with Loretta Lynch and John Kerry, among others.
The Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, had been one of the central documents behind FISA court applications targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
It included numerous allegations of Trump–Russia coordination, many of which remain unverified or disproven. Trump seized on this point, calling it “a disaster,” and claiming that key Obama administration officials continued to push the dossier’s claims even after their credibility was in doubt.
These assertions prompted Rodenbush to characterize Trump’s comments as political theater. Yet Trump argued that the dossier formed the critical foundation for surveillance of the Trump campaign.
“I guess they figured they’re going to put this in as classified information and nobody will ever see it again—but it doesn’t work that way,” Trump said.
Obama’s more forceful and nuanced approach to refuting allegations marks a departure from his usual reticence. The gravity of the accusations, and Trump’s direct link to the election narrative, appears to have prompted the rare public rebuke.
While Obama’s office acknowledged Russia’s role in attempting to influence the 2016 election, they emphasized that no evidence has yet emerged showing that any votes were altered.
The statement reaffirmed that both the Mueller and 2020 bipartisan Senate investigations did not find evidence of treasonous actions or coordinated vote tampering.
Despite Trump’s heightening pressure, it remains uncertain what the Justice Department will do with Gabbard’s criminal referral or whether the FBI will escalate its probe into former senior officials.
Legal analysts point out that falsifying FISA information, lying to Congress, or fabricating intelligence reports could constitute serious crimes. However, securing indictments—especially against high-profile political and intelligence figures—would represent a fraught and likely politically charged path for DOJ careers and authority.
Meanwhile, Gabbard has promised additional declassifications in the coming days. Trump, in turn, reiterated, “We have all of the documents, and from what Tulsi told me, she’s got thousands of additional documents coming.”
As the 2024 election cycle heats up, Trump is using the revelations to present himself and his administration as victims of a politically motivated intelligence coup. Whether or not the public—and the courts—see it that way could depend heavily on forthcoming disclosures, DOJ action, and Senate-level investigations.
Obama, on the other hand, is attempting to distance himself from the allegations even as he acknowledges the gravity of the debate around intelligence and public trust. His statement stresses established bipartisan findings, while Trump's narrative hinges on the promise of explosive documents yet to come.
The clash between Trump and Obama over Russiagate marks a new front in long-simmering political and institutional tensions. Trump is capitalizing on a growing conservative narrative of intelligence abuse and partisan espionage, leveraging declassifications to attack Obama’s legacy.
Obama, by countering with rare public statements rooted in bipartisan findings, seeks to preserve trust in established intelligence conclusions—or at least protect his personal reputation.
Whether or not fresh documents fuel a legal avalanche, the political battlefield has shifted again. The Democrat Republican divide now includes not just policy, but the validity of key institutions themselves. We may soon see if the DOJ takes action—or takes cover—behind precedent.
