5 big questions about Tulsi Gabbard’s Russia narrative—and what the Krasnov files tell us about ‘assets’

A deep dive into Tulsi Gabbard’s controversial intelligence declassification, how it aligns with Russian narratives, and what decades-old espionage playbooks can teach us about influence.

Krasnov Series

WASHINGTON (Morning Truth) – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has ignited a political firestorm with a newly declassified memo that accuses Obama-era officials of “manufacturing” the intelligence consensus on Russia’s 2016 election interference 1 . In a July 18 memorandum to the Justice Department, Gabbard urged criminal referrals for ex-CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, and others she claims took part in a “treasonous conspiracy” to “subvert President Trump and the will of the American people.” Republicans immediately seized on the findings, heralding Gabbard’s disclosures as overdue vindication for Donald Trump. Democrats, meanwhile, decried the move as a dangerous bid to rewrite history and intimidate the intelligence community. The showdown is the most dramatic yet over the legacy of “Russiagate” – and it casts fresh light on the so-called Krasnov archive, a cache of documents that outline how Russian agents cultivate political “assets” over decades.

Gabbard’s allegations mirror a three-step disinformation arc long observed by Kremlin-watchers: first, dismiss or downplay Moscow’s 2016 election operation; next, cast Trump as the victim of a malicious hoax; finally, criminalize the accusers behind the Russia investigation. That progression is spelled out in the Krasnov files – named for a purported KGB code-name – which trace how Soviet and Russian intelligence allegedly groomed Western figures (including Trump) as friendly contacts. With Gabbard now echoing Russian talking points from atop the U.S. intelligence community, experts say these oncetheoretical “active measures” are colliding with American politics in real time.

Below, we break down five big questions prompted by Gabbard’s Russia narrative, examining exactly what she unveiled, how it stacks up against official findings, and what the Krasnov documents reveal about the murky line between “useful idiot” and “witting asset.” We also identify the gaps in evidence that will determine whether Gabbard’s claims amount to overdue transparency – or a “wildly misleading” campaign to discredit U.S. intelligence for partisan ends.

1. What exactly did Gabbard declassify?

In her memo’s 11-page timeline and attachments, Gabbard unveiled a trove of formerly classified emails and analysis excerpts from 2016. These documents, now public, paint a picture of intelligence officials privately downplaying any Russian threat to voting systems – even as they later assessed a broader Kremlin interference campaign. Among the key items Gabbard declassified:

• Aug. 31, 2016: An internal Department of Homeland Security email to then-DNI James Clapper reporting “no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.”

• Sept. 2, 2016: A senior FBI official pushed to “soften” a draft intelligence assessment of pre-election Russian activity, saying the Bureau was “uncomfortable” implying “definitive information that Russia does intend to disrupt our elections.” Gabbard’s files include the email chain documenting this FBI request.

• Sept. 9, 2016: A private discussion among ODNI analysts concluded that Russia “probably is not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means” against voting infrastructure . Gabbard released the footnoted PDB language reflecting those caveats, in which multiple officials agreed there was likely no concerted Russian cyber effort to alter votes.

• Dec. 7–8, 2016: Draft talking points prepared for DNI Clapper – based on a post-election President’s Daily Brief – stated flatly that “foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome” . One bullet noted “no evidence of cyber manipulation… intended to alter results.” Gabbard’s memo reveals that this PDB was set to be published on Dec. 9, 2016 – until the FBI abruptly dissented and a senior official “killed” the brief on orders from above 7 .