New Revelations From “Crossfire Hurricane” Stir Accusations and Political Fallout

A newly declassified memo from the Obama administration has sent shockwaves through political circles by directly contradicting the longstanding “Trump–Russia collusion” narrative. The memo, released this week by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, states definitively that U.S. intelligence concluded Russia did not interfere in a way that affected vote counts in the 2016 election.

Written in 2016, the memo conveyed to then-President Obama that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” While earlier reports had mentioned an attempted breach of voter registration data in Illinois, the document emphasized that such incidents fell short of affecting actual vote tallies.

The memo continued: “The targeting of infrastructure not used in casting ballots makes it highly unlikely it would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote. Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes.” This precise language undercuts portions of public and private intelligence discussions emphasizing Russian influence.

The timing of the memo’s release is no coincidence. It comes amid a broader push to re-examine Crossfire Hurricane—the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia. The declassification comes as part of Gabbard’s sweeping campaign to expose what she calls a politically motivated intelligence manipulation by Obama-era officials.

Paul Sperry, a senior reporter for Real Clear Investigations, tweeted that he had learned of text messages and emails revealing direct coordination between Hillary Clinton campaign aides and senior Obama administration figures— including staff from the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and intelligence agencies—aimed at building a case tying Trump to Vladimir Putin.

These dramatic suggestions have escalated calls for legal action. Signals from the Department of Justice suggest a potential criminal investigation may target former CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey for their roles in initiating and overseeing the Crossfire Hurricane probe. Intelligence officials also say Brennan obscured key aspects of the investigation from other agencies and aggressively pushed for inclusion of the Steele dossier, a document later discredited for unverified claims.

A 200-page audit compiled by congressional investigators is now under review. This dossier includes internal notes from Crossfire Hurricane and transcripts from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation—completed in 2023—that also found no evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. The audit may form the basis of additional declassifications, as calls grow louder for greater transparency.

Beyond Collusion: Broader Allegations Surface

Observers say the implications extend beyond a narrow clash over election interference. There are even attempts to explore possible perjury by Brennan—specifically whether he misled Congress when he denied using the Steele dossier in the final intelligence assessment. While the statute of limitations might be a barrier, some officials suggest conspiracy charges could still be viable.

One insider was quoted bluntly: “Obama ordered the Intelligence Community Assessment to set Trump up and knock him off balance before his presidency even began. This was a far more consequential influence operation than anything Putin cooked up. Obama and Hillary orchestrated it, and the CIA and FBI executed.”

Meanwhile, James Comey—who remains a contentious figure in political discourse—recently sparked speculation with a cryptic social media post, prompting a visit from the Secret Service. While no threat has been confirmed, sources say the visit adds an unusual twist to the saga.

What’s Next: The Road Ahead

The sharp division over Crossfire Hurricane has reawakened partisan tensions surrounding intelligence, oversight, and historical accountability. Proponents of Gabbard’s moves call them overdue efforts to clear the record, while critics argue they revisit well-tread ground, ignoring the broader findings of investigations confirming Russian influence—even if they did not directly alter vote totals.

At the heart of the matter is trust in government institutions. Whether the new revelations trigger prosecutions, congressional hearings, or further disclosures, one thing is certain: the once-settled story of 2016 is anything but settled.