Fact check: Did Obama and Clinton create a treasonous act by pushing the Russian collusion narrative?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a deeply polarized debate about whether Obama and Clinton committed treasonous acts by promoting the Russian collusion narrative. The sources present conflicting interpretations of the same events:

Supporting the treason allegation:

• Tulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, has made serious accusations that Obama and his national security team "manufactured and politicised intelligence" to establish groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion probe ^{[1] [2]}
• Gabbard alleges this constituted a "years-long coup against" Trump and was designed to "subvert the American people's will" in the 2016 election ^{[2] [1]}
• Some sources claim declassified documents show the Obama administration "manufactured" intelligence to create the Russian interference narrative ^[3]
• The Durham report is cited as vindicating Trump and proving the Russian collusion narrative was a hoax ^[4]

Contradicting the treason allegation:

• The Mueller Report documented substantial Russian interference in the 2016 election, including operations by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and hacking by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Army (GRU) ^[5]
• While the Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion, it confirmed "two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign" ^[6]
• The Cato Institute argues that while no collusion was proven, "Russian agents interfered in the election to help Trump," justifying the original investigations ^[7]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several crucial contextual elements:

Intelligence Community Consensus:

The analyses show there was genuine Russian interference documented by multiple intelligence agencies, not merely a manufactured narrative ^{[5] [6]}. The Mueller Report provided extensive evidence of Russian operations targeting American elections.

Political Motivations:

• Donald Trump and Republican leaders benefit significantly from framing the Russia investigation as a "hoax" or "treasonous conspiracy," as this narrative deflects from documented Russian interference and potential campaign connections ^[8]
• Democratic leaders benefit from maintaining that the investigations were legitimate responses to genuine national security threats
• Tulsi Gabbard's current position as Director of National Intelligence gives her accusations particular weight, though Democrats have denounced her claims as "baseless and error-ridden" ^[9]

Investigative Findings:

The question fails to acknowledge that multiple official investigations, including the Mueller probe, found substantial evidence of Russian interference, even while concluding no collusion occurred ^{[10] [7]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The framing of the question contains several problematic elements:

Presumptive Language:

The question assumes Obama and Clinton "pushed" a false narrative rather than responded to legitimate intelligence concerns. The analyses show this characterization is disputed, with sources indicating Russian interference was real and documented ^{[5] [7]}.

Selective Source Credibility:

The question appears to privilege claims that the Russia investigation was manufactured while ignoring official findings. One analysis notes this reflects a "Russia investigation origins conspiracy theory" promoted by Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and other Republican leaders to "delegitimize the investigations" ^[8].

False Binary:

The question creates a false choice between "treasonous conspiracy" and complete innocence, when the analyses show the reality involves legitimate Russian interference that was investigated through proper channels, even if some investigative methods were later criticized ^{[7] [5]}.

Unsubstantiated Claims:

While Gabbard's allegations are serious, the analyses indicate her claims lack "concrete evidence" and are based on "unverified reports" ^[3]. The question treats these allegations as established fact rather than disputed claims requiring verification.