Russiagate Revisited

Chukwuka

Alright, welcome back to The New Sentinel, folks. Today, we’re diving into Russiagate—again, but this time with some fresh documents and, well, a lot more finger-pointing. So, let’s set the stage. Before the 2016 election, the intelligence community—folks like Comey, Brennan, Clapper—were saying Russia didn’t have the intent or the capability to hack the actual election. That’s the key bit. But then, after Trump’s win, things changed. Suddenly, the narrative shifted. Major, you remember the December 9th, 2016, NSC meeting, right?

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Oh, I remember it, Chukwuka. That meeting’s like a chess move you don’t see coming until it’s too late. So, the timeline goes: right before that, there was supposed to be a presidential daily briefing—PPD—on Russia. But, hours before, a senior intel official yanked it from the president’s book. Next day, Obama calls in the big dogs—Comey, Brennan, Clapper, the whole crew. Suddenly, the assessment flips. Now, Russia’s not just meddling, they’re supposedly swinging the whole election. That’s a 180 if I’ve ever seen one.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

But Ethan, let’s not forget, intelligence is always evolving. Sometimes, new information comes in, and you have to reassess. Still, the speed of that pivot is, well, suspicious. The documents Tulsi Gabbard released suggest Obama himself directed the community to produce a new assessment—one that leaned hard into the idea that Moscow affected the outcome. That’s a lot of pressure from the top, and it raises questions about politicization.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, Olga, but let’s call it what it is—command influence. You got the Commander-in-Chief telling the intel folks, “Give me a report that fits the narrative.” That’s not just a reassessment, that’s a full-on op order. And look, the original stance was clear: Russia didn’t have the juice to hack the vote. Suddenly, after that NSC huddle, it’s all “Russia did it.” That’s not how you run an intel shop. That’s how you run a PR campaign.

Chukwuka

Exactly, Duke. And the key players—Obama, Comey, Brennan, Clapper—they all had a hand in shifting that narrative. The question is, was it genuine concern or just politics? I mean, I’ve seen briefings change on a dime, but this was something else. Olga, you look like you want to jump in.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

I do, because while the timeline is troubling, we have to remember the context. There was real fear about foreign interference, and sometimes leaders overcorrect. But the fact remains: the intelligence community’s stance changed dramatically after direct White House intervention. That’s not normal, and it’s not healthy for democracy.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Yeah, and it set the stage for years of division. Once you politicize intelligence, you can’t put that genie back in the bottle. The trust is gone.

Duke Johnson

Alright, so let’s talk about how this all blew up. Tulsi Gabbard—now DNI—drops these documents, and suddenly you got whistleblowers crawling outta the woodwork. They’re saying, “We were disgusted by what happened.” That’s a big deal. And then, boom, the media machine kicks in. New York Times, Washington Post—they’re running with the Russia narrative like it’s gospel.

Chukwuka

Yeah, Duke, and I gotta say, having sat in on intel briefings back in the day, it’s wild how fast a narrative can shift. One classified memo, and suddenly everyone’s singing a different tune. I remember, you’d walk into a briefing thinking one thing, and by the end, you’re questioning everything you thought you knew. That’s the power of leaks and selective information.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

And the media, they amplified it. Sometimes for good reason—public needs to know if there’s foreign interference. But the coverage was relentless. Every headline, every cable news segment, it was Russia, Russia, Russia. It’s easy to see how public perception got shaped so quickly. But, as we’ve seen, the difference between influence operations and actual hacking got blurred. That’s dangerous.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Yeah, Olga, and let’s not forget, the leaks weren’t just about transparency. They were strategic. Someone wanted this narrative out there, and the media was more than happy to oblige. It’s like we talked about in that episode on media manipulation—remember “MAGA at the Crossroads”? The press can make or break a story, and here, they ran with the most sensational angle.

Duke Johnson

And you got whistleblowers now, saying they were pressured, that intel was “manufactured and politicized.” That’s not just a leak, that’s a full-on breach of trust. And the media, instead of asking tough questions, just ran with it. That’s how you get two years of Mueller and a country split down the middle.

Chukwuka

It’s a lesson, really. When you mix leaks, whistleblowers, and a hungry media, you get a narrative that’s almost impossible to unwind—even when the facts start to come out. And for the folks on the ground, like us vets, it’s frustrating to see how quickly the story can change, just because someone decided to drop a memo at the right time.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

So, let’s get into the heart of it—was this genuine concern or political motivation? The debate is fierce. Some say the intelligence community was just doing its job, protecting democracy. Others see a calculated move to undermine Trump. But what’s clear is the impact: public trust in institutions took a massive hit. And that’s not just an American problem. I’ve seen similar disinformation campaigns in other countries—Ukraine, for example, or even in my home, Russia. The consequences for civil society are real. People lose faith, and that’s hard to rebuild.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Yeah, Olga, and let’s clarify something. There’s a big difference between influence operations—like running bots, buying Facebook ads—and actually hacking election systems. The documents, even the ones Gabbard released, show Russia didn’t hack the vote. They tried to influence, sure, but that’s a far cry from changing ballots. The media and some politicians blurred that line, and it’s cost us dearly in terms of trust.

Duke Johnson

And that’s the playbook, right? You muddy the waters, make folks doubt everything. That’s classic info ops. But when our own intel community gets caught up in it—whether by accident or design—it’s a problem. We’re supposed to be the gold standard. Now, people don’t know who to believe. That’s a win for our adversaries, plain and simple.

Chukwuka

And it’s not just about 2016. This kind of doubt lingers. Every election since, people are looking over their shoulders, wondering if the fix is in. That’s not healthy for a democracy. We talked about this in “Courts in Command”—when trust in institutions erodes, the whole system suffers. Whether you think the intel community was acting out of genuine concern or playing politics, the damage is done.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

And the lesson is, we need transparency and accountability. Otherwise, the cycle repeats—here and around the world. Disinformation isn’t just a Russian export; it’s a global threat to civil society. We have to do better.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Couldn’t agree more. And as we wrap up, just remember—debate is healthy, but doubt, when weaponized, can tear a country apart. We gotta keep asking questions, but we also need to rebuild trust.

Duke Johnson

That’s right. Stay sharp, stay skeptical, but don’t let the noise drown out the facts. We’ll keep digging, and we’ll be back with more. Appreciate y’all tuning in.

Chukwuka

Thanks for joining us on The New Sentinel. Olga, Major, Duke—always a pleasure. We’ll see you next time. Stay vigilant, everyone.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Thank you, everyone. Take care and keep questioning.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Be safe out there. Until next time.

Duke Johnson

Out. See y’all next episode.