When the "Russiagate" scandal broke in 2016, America's most prestigious newspapers treated it as gospel. The New York Times and The Washington Post led the charge, framing Donald Trump's victory as the product of Kremlin interference. For this coverage, both were awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2018.
To read this article in the following languages, click the Translate Website button below the author's name.
українська мова, Русский, عربي, Hebrew, Español, Français, Farsi, Български, Portugues, 中文, Deutsch, Italiano, 日本語, 한국어. And 40 more languages.
Seven years later, the foundation of that story is collapsing. Tulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, has accused Barack Obama and his top intelligence chiefs of fabricating Russiagate in order to sabotage Trump's presidency. According to declassified documents released in July, the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment — the document that entrenched the narrative of Russian interference — was deliberately manipulated under the direction of Obama, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, and FBI Director James Comey.
The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has since convened a grand jury and formed a special "strike force" to probe whether these actions amounted to criminal conspiracy. Gabbard herself has described the affair as "treasonous."
No Reckoning in the Press
For all of this, the institutions most implicated — the Times and the Post — have not issued a word of reckoning. There has been no retraction, no apology, no editorial reflection. Their Pulitzer-winning coverage still stands on the record.
Contrast this with Watergate: in the 1970s, Woodward and Bernstein's reporting exposed genuine White House criminality, leading to Nixon's resignation and marking the high-water mark of adversarial journalism. Russiagate is its inversion: a media–intelligence partnership that built a false narrative, rewarded by prizes, and left unexamined even when evidence of fabrication emerges.
Disputed but Not Denied
Former intelligence officials have fiercely contested Gabbard's disclosures, defending the integrity of the Russia findings and accusing her of mischaracterising the record. Yet these rebuttals have not addressed the specific allegation that dissenting analysts were sidelined and that weak and politicised material — such as the Steele dossier — was elevated to drive a predetermined conclusion.
Click here to read the full article.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
Featured image is from Pixabay
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Source link
