Declassified intel just dropped a bombshell about the 2016 presidential race that’s got Washington buzzing. According to the New York Post, A long-buried House Intelligence Committee report, made public on Wednesday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, reveals that Russian intelligence had dirt on Hillary Clinton’s health, but Vladimir Putin opted to sit on it, betting she’d win. This isn’t just gossip; it’s a peek behind the curtain of international meddling that challenges everything we thought we knew.
The report, dated September 18, 2020, lays bare that Russian spies, specifically the SVR, dug up serious concerns about Clinton’s physical and mental state during her campaign against Donald Trump.
Details in the report paint a troubling picture: Clinton allegedly battled “psycho-emotional” issues, including wild mood swings from anger to cheerfulness, while relying on heavy tranquilizers. Beyond that, she reportedly faced major medical diagnoses like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and lung conditions. Her team, per the intel, kept this under the tightest of wraps.
By September 2016, even then-President Barack Obama and top Democratic leaders were privately rattled, finding Clinton’s health “extraordinarily alarming” and fearing it could tank her chances against Trump. It’s hard not to wonder how much of a gamble they were taking, rolling the dice on a candidate with such baggage while the public was left in the dark.
Russian hackers, under Putin’s orders, didn’t just stop at health intel—they nabbed campaign emails too, including one showing Clinton’s team scheming to tie Trump to Putin and Russian hackers. The goal? Distracted from her email server mess that had voters fuming.
Some Democratic National Committee emails did leak via WikiLeaks that fall, alongside messages from campaign chair John Podesta, but the report says Putin held back the juiciest stuff. Documents far less damaging hit the airwaves compared to what he kept in reserve, including allegations of Clinton pressuring religious groups for donations with promises of State Department favors. Talk about playing the long game—Putin wasn’t just meddling; he was curating.
Why the restraint? The report suggests that Putin expected Clinton to clinch the presidency and saved the worst for leverage against her administration post-election. That’s a chess move, not a checkers play, and it raises questions about how much foreign powers are banking on our political blind spots.
Now, let’s unpack the intel mess surrounding this. Gabbard, in releasing the report, called the 2017 Obama-ordered assessment on Russian meddling a “political hit-job” built on shaky ground. She argues, “Obama directed an intelligence community assessment to further this contrived false narrative that ultimately led to a year-long coup to undermine President Trump’s presidency.”
Obama, firing back, dismissed the claims as “ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.” But with all due respect to the former president, when a report based on 20 interviews with intel and FBI insiders says otherwise, it’s tough to just wave it away as noise.
The 2017 Obama report claimed Russia aimed to “undermine public faith” in our democracy, trash Clinton, and boost Trump with Putin’s clear preference. Yet the 2020 House report flips that script, insisting Putin’s main goal was sowing chaos in our system, not picking a winner, and he figured Clinton had it in the bag. That contradiction alone shows how much spin has clouded the truth.
Even the Senate report sides with Obama’s take, citing specific intel that Putin favored Trump. But House Chair Rick Crawford isn’t buying the old narrative, stating, “The Russia hoax will go down as one of the most troublesome events in U.S. history.” He’s got a point—when trust in our institutions gets weaponized, we all lose.
Crawford added, “To this day, our country is more polarized than ever before, and the Russia hoax played a role in that.” It’s a sobering reminder that these games of espionage and misinformation aren’t just Beltway drama—they fracture the very fabric of our national unity.
Then there’s the Steele Dossier, that infamous Clinton campaign document the House report says was attached to Obama’s intel assessment despite its discredited status. Obama-era heavyweights like CIA Director John Brennan pushed to use it, even brushing off concerns with a flippant, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” That kind of arrogance from intel brass makes you wonder who’s guarding the henhouse.
Gabbard didn’t mince words, accusing Brennan and others of mischaracterizing intel to peddle a false story about Putin’s supposed Trump bias. She noted, “The report goes into great detail about the information that Russia and Putin had on Hillary Clinton, which included possible criminal acts.” It’s a damning charge that demands accountability, not excuses.
At the end of the day, this declassified report isn’t just a history lesson—it’s a warning. When foreign powers hold cards we don’t even know exist, and our leaders play fast and loose with the truth, the American people are the ones left holding the bag. Let’s hope this sparks a push for transparency, not more partisan mudslinging.
