Both National Review and The Wall Street Journal have published editorials rejecting the claim by President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that former President Barack Obama and top members of his administration were involved in a “treasonous conspiracy” against Trump.
In its editorial, the conservative magazine acknowledged that “Trump was the victim of one of the most insidious dirty tricks in American political history,” citing the Clinton campaign’s role in promoting the discredited Steele dossier to push the Trump-Russia “collusion” story—one that officials in the Obama administration took up and advanced.
However, the magazine did not go so far as to endorse Trump and Gabbard’s broader narrative. It continued:
“Trump and Gabbard go further, treating the accurate portion of the Democratic narrative as though it too were a fiction. Russia did indeed try, however ineffectively, to interfere in the election. Trump CIA Director John Ratcliffe has attested to it. Just days before Gabbard’s release of emails, the CIA issued a report finding that the 2016 ICA had been on solid footing when it concluded ‘with high confidence’ that Russia had meddled in the hope of undermining Clinton as president.”
Gabbard disputes that conclusion, pointing to 2016 emails from then-DNI James Clapper suggesting that Russia did not carry out cyberattacks. But as National Review noted, Clapper’s comment referred specifically to cyber operations targeting election infrastructure—not to other activities like hacking the DNC or disseminating anti-Clinton propaganda. The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) focused on these broader operations.
The editorial further argued that the Obama administration had the authority—and, in fact, the duty—to investigate Russian cyberespionage. That said, the decision to exploit the investigation for political purposes and tarnish Trump’s candidacy was, in the publication’s view, “an appalling abuse of power.”
Still, the editorial warned those pushing to prosecute Obama officials:
“Those who would argue that this abuse of power constitutes a crime should remember that Trump and his team have avidly proclaimed that presidents must have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the broad ambit of executive power.”
It concluded, “We have had enough, more than enough, lawfare.”
The Wall Street Journal expressed similar skepticism in its editorial:
“While the files uploaded by Ms. Gabbard add to the known facts, they don’t live up to her press release. Much of her summary document is focused on the lack of evidence that U.S. adversaries in 2016 hacked election infrastructure or manipulated vote totals. She also seeks to cast doubt on the notion that Vladimir Putin preferred Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton, though that idea didn’t come from Mr. Obama’s spy chiefs alone.”
The editorial pointed to a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, released by then-acting Chairman Marco Rubio—now Secretary of State—which concluded:
“Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party… Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.”
Finally, the Journal cautioned against Trump’s calls for retaliation:
“By calling to ‘go after people,’ Mr. Trump is demanding more partisan lawfare, identifying targets and urging prosecutors to find crimes to charge them with. It’s the same thing that was done to him by Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Mr. Biden, whose White House leaked that he supported prosecuting Mr. Trump… Now Mr. Trump is back in power, after telling voters he would end the ‘weaponization’ of law enforcement. That lawfare backfired on Democrats, and our guess is that it would do the same on Republicans and Mr. Trump.”
