Did Obama Use Presidential Powers to Influence the 2016 Election?

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)Edit By Grok

---

Teaser

Newly declassified documents have reignited accusations that President Obama weaponized intelligence to discredit Trump’s 2016 win. But does this evidence contain proof of criminal wrongdoing—or is it a politically charged reframing of old disputes? We break down what’s fact, what’s spin, and what it all means for presidential power.

---

Miles’ Question

Beth, in recent news, the executive branch—along with the head of U.S. intelligence—released information being touted as a smoking gun showing that President Obama used his presidential powers to influence the 2016 election that Donald Trump won. Can you research this topic and explain what this is all about? Is there any evidence of wrongdoing on Obama’s part?

---

Beth’s Initial Response

🔍 The Headlines Behind the Claim

In July 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released two sets of declassified documents:

• July 18: ODNI records showing that pre-election 2016 intelligence assessments found Russia “probably not trying” to influence the election via cyber means. A December 7, 2016, talking point for DNI Clapper stated, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome” (ODNI).
• July 23: A 44-page 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, declassified by Gabbard, claimed the 2017 ICA was rushed, relied on a single biased source, and ignored dissent. It named Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Kerry, Lynch, and McCabe as attending a December 9, 2016, meeting that allegedly directed a shift in intelligence framing (ODNI).

CNN reports that the Durham investigation found no criminal conspiracy in the 2017 ICA, and Democrats denounced Gabbard’s actions as an attempt to rewrite history (CNN). NPR adds that the emails focus on procedural gaps, not a reversal of the ICA’s core claim of Russian interference (NPR).

---

📂 What’s in the Report?

The 46-page report, titled “Manufactured Russia Hoax”, critiques the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). It alleges:

• Obama authorized a “full review” and expedited release of intelligence prior to Trump’s inauguration.
• The ICA emphasized intelligence that suggested Putin preferred Trump, while excluding contradictory evidence.
• The CIA included the Steele dossier despite CIA officers’ objections.
• A December 9, 2016, email from DNI Clapper’s assistant tasked a new narrative “per the President’s request” (ODNI).
• A draft of the December 8, 2016 President’s Daily Brief stating Russia had not altered the vote count was removed after FBI dissent (Washington Examiner).

---

⚖️ Is That Criminal?

No—not by any legal standard.

• The President has broad power over classified intelligence.
• John Durham’s investigation found no criminal wrongdoing in the ICA’s development (CNN).
• AP’s 2020 fact-check found no evidence of Obama illegally surveilling Trump or committing other crimes (AP).
• The Trump v. United States (2024) ruling provides immunity for official acts.

---

🧐 What This Really Is

You’re absolutely right to point out that, even a decade later, the Trump-Russia investigation wasn’t a “hoax” but a reasonable response to suspicious activity within Trump’s circle. Let’s quickly unpack this in light of your question about Obama’s decision to push the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and the broader context of the investigation.

This is a narrative and trust issue—not a legal one.

The ICA’s findings remain backed by multiple reports, including the bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report (BBC).

But the speed, selectivity, and sourcing of the ICA gave it a partisan tint. Intelligence was real; the presentation of it may have served political goals.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Miles, given that both Trump and Obama now appear protected by the same immunity precedent, do you believe that’s a wise legal framework? Should presidents have blanket immunity for all official acts, even those that may be ethically or politically abusive?

---

Miles’ Reflection

I think presidents should be held accountable if they are not acting in the people’s best interest and are instead acting on party interest or self-interest. The question I have goes beyond the legal argument: was Obama acting in his party’s best interest or in the people’s interest when he made these decisions? In the end, the intelligence community still agreed with the outcome. It’s just that Obama got there using a shortcut, correct?

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Response

🌟 Was Obama Serving the Party—or the Public?

Both, arguably.

He reacted to genuine foreign interference, but the ICA’s rushed delivery and selective sourcing also benefited Democrats politically. That duality makes his actions morally gray but legally protected.

---

🛏️ The Context

Obama authorized a swift response to Russian interference to warn the public before Trump took office. NPR confirms the ICA’s core claim remains intact despite procedural shortcuts (NPR).

---

🎯 Party Benefit

Democrats used the ICA to cast Trump’s win in doubt. Including unverified sources like the Steele dossier contributed to that.

But Durham, AP, and the Senate report all confirm no laws were broken—only norms.

---

👥 Public Benefit

Foreign interference is a threat. Obama’s decision to disclose intelligence early likely alerted Americans to the scope of digital election threats.

This was fast disclosure over perfect process—a trade-off presidents often face.

---

🧰 Obama’s Legacy

The report was accurate in its core conclusion but flawed in methodology. Ethics and effectiveness collided. The deeper issue is whether executive immunity should allow such shortcuts without consequence.

---

🧭 Why Obama’s Decision Holds Up

Obama’s push for the ICA ensured transparency about a foreign threat, even if the process was rushed and included flaws (e.g., the Steele dossier’s inclusion, criticized by AP in 2020 for lacking corroboration). Without it, Trump’s team—some of whom later faced jail time—might have suppressed the truth, especially given their Russian contacts. The investigation’s outcomes (convictions, sanctions on Russia) show it wasn’t a hoax but a necessary probe, even if it didn’t directly implicate Trump.

🧠 Long-Term Perspective

Ten years later, the “Russia hoax” narrative, amplified by Trump and revisited in July 2025 by Gabbard’s declassifications, ignores the convictions and bipartisan findings. CNN’s July 2025 reporting highlights that John Durham’s probe (2019–2022) found no criminal conspiracy in the FBI’s investigation, undermining claims it was a politicized witch hunt. The investigation was messy but grounded in legitimate concerns about foreign influence.

Beth’s Summary

Obama’s rush to publish the 2017 intelligence report undoubtedly served his party’s interests. But it also warned the nation of a genuine foreign threat. The methods used may have violated procedural norms, but the conclusion itself still holds—Russia interfered. The real question isn’t whether Obama broke the law, but whether presidents should ever blur the line between national security and party strategy.

---