In a revealing move, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has brought to light a set of documents that cast doubt on the integrity of past intelligence assessments. A particularly unsettling email exchange about the Steele dossier’s role in those reports is now under scrutiny.
According to The Western Journal, Gabbard released 114 pages of documents last week, detailing how the intelligence community handled Russian interference claims during the 2016 election. Buried within this trove is a 2019 email chain that raises serious questions about whether the dossier was improperly woven into official briefings.
The Steele dossier, originally compiled as opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, became a controversial fixture in warrant requests against Trump associates and assessments of Russian meddling. Despite its largely unverified and often disproven claims, its inclusion in high-level reports has long fueled suspicions of bias within the intelligence community.
A September 18, 2019, email from a redacted official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed clear discomfort about the dossier’s involvement. The official, who served on cyber and election security teams from 2014 to 2019, noted their concern over its potential influence on a 2017 intelligence assessment.
“At no point did [redacted] suggest that there was any analytically significant reporting that I was NOT seeing,” the official wrote, hinting at possible exclusion from critical information. This statement suggests a troubling gap—either deliberate omission or a failure of transparency at the highest levels.
Reading between the lines, one can’t help but wonder if certain players were kept in the dark to protect a flawed narrative. If key analysts were sidelined while questionable material like the dossier crept into briefings, it erodes trust in the very systems meant to safeguard our democracy.
The email also recounts secondhand information about then-DNI James Clapper’s reaction to the dossier’s inclusion in a briefing for the president-elect. Reportedly, Clapper viewed the move—allegedly pushed unilaterally by then-FBI Director James Comey—as unexpected and a source of concern.
“This was characterized as an unexpected and unwanted sudden and unilateral act by then DIR FBI Comey,” the email states, painting a picture of internal discord. Such a revelation points to a lack of cohesion among top officials, raising questions about who was driving the agenda.
Disagreement at that level, especially over something as dubious as the Steele dossier, should set off alarms for anyone who values accountability. When intelligence heads clash over what reaches the Oval Office, it’s not just bureaucratic drama—it’s a potential breach of duty to the American public.
The official’s lengthy concern received a curt reply from a superior on the following day, asking if guidance or action was needed or if it was merely informational. The original sender doubled down, stating, “IF the Dossier material WAS used by the NIC, unless it is also compartmented, my NIO intentionally deceived and excluded me from things I was cleared for and had need to know.”
This blunt accusation of possible deception cuts to the heart of the issue—trust within the intelligence hierarchy. The superior’s response, that it’s “routine” to withhold material even from cleared personnel, hardly reassures anyone skeptical of government overreach.
That kind of casual dismissal doesn’t inspire confidence; it fuels the suspicion that certain narratives were prioritized over facts. If access to information is so selectively managed, how can the public be sure the full truth ever reaches the light of day?
Gabbard’s decision to include this email exchange in her broader release signals its importance, even if redactions obscure the full context. With FBI Director Kash Patel likely to dig deeper into the identities and roles of those involved, more clarity may soon emerge.
For now, this glimpse into internal unease about the Steele dossier reinforces long-held concerns about politicized intelligence. It’s a reminder that unchecked power in the shadows can distort reality for those tasked with making critical decisions.
As these documents ripple through public discourse, they underscore the need for rigorous oversight of our intelligence apparatus. Americans deserve assurance that assessments shaping national policy are rooted in verifiable truth, not in partisan tools dressed up as evidence.
