Obama’s and Clinton’s actions far worse the Watergate.
In recent years, declassified documents and investigations have exposed the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, commonly referred to as "Russiagate," which dominated political discourse following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Reports and officials, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, have shown that former President Barack Obama and members of his administration, along with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, created and promoted a narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. These were deliberate effort to undermine Trump’s campaign and presidency the scale of this operation surpasses the Watergate scandal in its impact on American democracy. This article summarizes the key evidence cited in support of these claims, based on declassified documents and public statements, while noting that these allegations remain contentious and are disputed by other sources.
Key Evidence Cited in Allegations
1. Declassified Documents and Intelligence Assessments
According to a report released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on July 18, 2025, declassified documents suggest that the Obama administration "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election. These documents claim that prior to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) consistently assessed that Russia was "probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means." However, after Trump’s victory, a new Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released on January 6, 2017, stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances" by discrediting Hillary Clinton. Gabbard’s report alleges this conclusion contradicted earlier assessments and relied on questionable sources, including the now-discredited Steele dossier.
The Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, contained unverified allegations of ties between Trump and Russia. Critics, including Gabbard, argue that its inclusion in the ICA, despite objections from some intelligence officials, undermined the credibility of the assessment. The House Intelligence Committee’s 2017 report, declassified in 2025, further claims that the ICA relied on a single, biased source and failed to consider evidence suggesting Russia expected Clinton to win and planned to leak damaging information about her post-election.
2. Alleged Manipulation of Intelligence Processes
Gabbard’s reports highlight procedural irregularities in the creation of the January 2017 ICA. For instance, a President’s Daily Brief prepared on December 8, 2016, stated that no Russian or criminal actors had impacted vote counts, but it was pulled from publication due to "new guidance" from Obama administration officials. On December 9, 2016, a meeting involving key figures such as James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe allegedly tasked the IC with producing a new assessment to detail Russia’s supposed efforts to influence the election. Critics argue this represented a shift from earlier intelligence findings and was driven by political motives to delegitimize Trump’s victory.
Additionally, a 2025 CIA review ordered by Director John Ratcliffe found that the 2017 ICA was rushed, involved a smaller-than-usual circle of analysts, and included the Steele dossier against standard intelligence practices. The review noted that some analysts questioned the claim that Putin preferred Trump, citing a lack of direct evidence.
3. Testimonies and Lack of Empirical Evidence
Declassified House Intelligence Committee transcripts from 2017 reveal that key Obama administration officials, including James Clapper and Loretta Lynch, admitted to having no direct empirical evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Clapper testified that he saw no evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia, and Lynch stated she did not recall being briefed on such evidence. Despite this, the Trump-Russia narrative fueled investigations, including the Mueller probe and FISA warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page, which some argue were based on the questionable Steele dossier.
Posts on X and other sources claim that Clinton campaign operatives coordinated with Obama administration officials to promote the Russia collusion narrative. A 2023 post referencing the Durham report suggested that Clinton’s plan to link Trump to Russia was briefed to Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden in July 2016, before the election. While the Durham investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama or Biden, it criticized the FBI’s handling of the Steele dossier and its use in the Trump-Russia probe.
The Watergate scandal, which led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, involved a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent efforts to cover up the Nixon administration’s involvement. Critics of the Obama administration and Clinton campaign argue that Russiagate constitutes a far graver scandal due to its scope and impact. They claim that the alleged manipulation of intelligence by high-level officials, including the president, to undermine a duly elected candidate and presidency represents an unprecedented abuse of power. Unlike Watergate, which involved a single incident and cover-up, Russiagate is said to have spanned years, involving multiple government agencies, media leaks, and investigations that shaped public perception and policy, including heightened U.S.-Russia tensions, impeachments, and legal actions against Trump associates. Gabbard and others describe this as a "years-long coup" to subvert the will of the American people, a charge they argue surpasses Watergate in its threat to democratic processes.