Tulsi Gabbard Refers Barack Obama for Criminal Prosecution Over Russia Collusion Intelligence Hoax

In a historic and politically charged development, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has formally referred former President Barack Obama to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, accusing him of orchestrating a deliberate manipulation of American intelligence to falsely implicate then-candidate Donald Trump in collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Speaking from the White House briefing room on Wednesday, Gabbard laid out the case against Obama in blunt terms, suggesting that the former president and his senior national security team knowingly pushed forward with a fraudulent intelligence narrative to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration.

The unprecedented move comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to release previously classified documents related to “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s campaign.

As volumes of material continue to be declassified, the growing evidence appears to show that senior Obama-era officials suppressed contradictory intelligence, ignored dissenting voices within the CIA, and elevated a false narrative that Russia had directly interfered in the election to support Trump’s candidacy.

“There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false,” Gabbard said during the press briefing.

“They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true—it wasn’t.”

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who once served as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, has steadily broken ranks with her party over the last several years, particularly on national security and civil liberties issues.

But her Wednesday appearance marked a definitive shift into the orbit of President Trump’s political movement, as she aligned herself with his long-standing claims that the Russia investigation was an orchestrated attempt to destroy his presidency before it began.

“It all comes back to and confirms the same report: There was a gross politicization and manipulation of intelligence by the Obama administration intended to delegitimize President Trump even before he was inaugurated, ultimately usurping the will of the American people,” Gabbard declared.

When pressed by reporters to clarify whether she was recommending criminal prosecution for Obama himself, Gabbard responded without hesitation: “That’s correct.”

The matter now rests with Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was appointed earlier this year to replace Merrick Garland. Bondi has already signaled a willingness to pursue criminal action if the evidence warrants it.

“The evidence we’ve found and released directly points to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard said. “This was not an accident. This was not a misunderstanding. This was an intentional act to distort the intelligence process and to weaponize our national security apparatus for political purposes.”

At the heart of the scandal is a 46-page intelligence report prepared by Gabbard’s office. The report outlines how senior Obama administration officials, including then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, allegedly suppressed evidence suggesting that Russia’s efforts had minimal or no impact on the election outcome.

A key piece of evidence is a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) from December 9, 2016, reportedly shown to Obama, which concluded that Russian and criminal actors “did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”

That PDB was not shared with President-elect Trump, according to Gabbard. Instead, the intelligence community went public with a more inflammatory assessment, suggesting that Russian interference had directly benefited Trump’s campaign and possibly tipped the election in his favor—an assertion now under direct scrutiny.

The official intelligence assessment published in early January 2017 helped spark years of investigations, media hysteria, and public distrust, culminating in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s lengthy probe, which ultimately found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

“This moment marks a turning point,” Gabbard said. “The American people deserve to know that the most powerful offices in our land were used not to protect democracy, but to undermine it from within.”

Trump, who has long alleged that his campaign was the target of a politically motivated intelligence operation, hailed Gabbard’s move as a vindication of his claims.

“This is a massive moment for truth in American history,” Trump said in a statement released following the press conference. “For years, they tried to destroy my presidency with a lie. Now the facts are coming out, and it leads straight to the top—Barack Hussein Obama.”

The White House confirmed that Gabbard and Bondi have already held preliminary discussions about the referral, and that the Department of Justice will now conduct a formal review of the evidence before deciding whether to move forward with charges.

Legal experts note that while prosecuting a former president would be unprecedented in modern U.S. history, the political will to do so has grown stronger within Trump’s base, especially following revelations from the Durham investigation and now Gabbard’s report.

Obama, through a spokesperson, dismissed the entire affair as a “political stunt” meant to deflect attention from other investigations facing Trump administration figures.

“Out of respect for the presidency, we rarely respond to the constant stream of misinformation coming out of the current White House,” said Patrick Rodenbush, Obama’s longtime spokesman.

“But these claims are absurd. There was a bipartisan agreement that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, and nothing in these so-called declassified documents changes that.”

He also pointed to the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report—chaired at the time by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio—as further confirmation that Russia did engage in election interference, though that report stopped short of claiming it changed the outcome.

But Gabbard directly challenged those conclusions, stating that the underlying intelligence was cherry-picked to fit a political narrative. “We now know that the Senate report was based on flawed and filtered data provided by those same actors we now know manipulated the initial assessment,” she said.

Trump allies on Capitol Hill have already seized on the moment. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced plans to subpoena key Obama-era officials, including Brennan and Clapper, for public testimony. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) called for a special counsel to investigate the full extent of wrongdoing across federal intelligence agencies.

“This is bigger than Watergate,” Vance tweeted. “We’re talking about a former president and his inner circle using the national security state to wage war on a political opponent and deceive the American public.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have rallied to defend Obama, calling the referral a “dangerous political escalation.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called Gabbard’s briefing “embarrassing,” accusing her of “selling out to MAGA extremism.”

Still, the political momentum appears to be with Gabbard and Trump—for now. The revelations have dominated media coverage and reignited debates over deep-state influence, political weaponization of intelligence, and the limits of presidential accountability.

Gabbard, once considered a rising star in Democratic circles, now appears firmly positioned within Trump’s inner circle. Sources inside the White House say she is being considered for a senior national security role if Trump wins re-election in 2024.

For her part, Gabbard framed her actions as nonpartisan and necessary. “This isn’t about party,” she said. “This is about preserving the integrity of our republic and ensuring no president, no matter how powerful, can manipulate our intelligence services to target their political enemies.”

As the Department of Justice begins its review, the nation braces for what could be one of the most consequential legal decisions in U.S. political history—whether to prosecute a former president for conspiring to frame his successor. Whatever the outcome, the ripple effects of Gabbard’s criminal referral of Barack Obama are sure to echo through American politics for years to come.