WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump rehashed longstanding grievances over the Russia investigation that shadowed much of his first term, lashing out Tuesday following a new report from his intelligence director aimed at casting doubt on long-established findings about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 election.
“It’s time to go after people,” Trump said from the Oval Office as he repeated a baseless claim that former President Barack Obama and other officials had engaged in treason.
Trump was not making his claims for the first time, but he delivered them when administration officials are harnessing the machinery of the federal government to investigate the targets of Trump’s derision, including key officials responsible for scrutinizing Russia’s attempts to intervene on Trump’s behalf in 2016.
The backward-looking inquiries are taking place even as the Republican administration’s national security agencies are confronting global threats. But they have served as a rallying cry for Trump, who is trying to unify a political base at odds over the Jeffrey Epstein case, with some allies pressing to disclose more information despite the president’s push to turn the page.
Trump’s attack prompted a rare response from Obama’s post-presidential office.
“Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesman. “But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
Gabbard’s new report on the Russia investigation
Trump’s tirade, a detour from his official business as he hosted the leader of the Philippines, unfolded against the backdrop of a new report from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that represented his administration’s latest attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia investigation, which has infuriated him for years.
The report, released Friday, downplayed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election by highlighting Obama administration emails showing officials had concluded before and after the presidential race that Moscow had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in Trump’s favor.
But Obama’s Democratic administration never suggested otherwise, even as it exposed other means by which Russia interfered in the election, including through a massive hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails by intelligence operatives working with WikiLeaks, as well as a covert influence campaign aimed at swaying public opinion and sowing discord through fake social media posts.
Gabbard’s report appears to suggest the absence of manipulation of state election systems is a basis to call into question more general Russian interference. By issuing it, she appeared to recover her standing in Trump’s orbit, which just one month ago had seemed uncertain after Trump said she was “wrong” when she previously said she believed Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon.
“She’s the hottest one in the room right now,” Trump said Tuesday night. “Tulsi, great job — and I know you have a lot more coming.”
Democrats, for their part, swiftly decried the report as factually flawed and politically motivated.
“It is sadly not surprising that DNI Gabbard, who promised to depoliticize the intelligence community, is once again weaponizing her position to amplify the president’s election conspiracy theories,” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote on X.
Several investigations found Russian interference in 2016
Russia’s broad interference in 2016 has been established through a series of investigations, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which concluded that the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin’s help but also found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy.
A House Intelligence Committee report also documented Russia’s meddling, as did the Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded its work in 2020 at a time when the panel was led by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who’s now Trump’s secretary of state.
A different special counsel appointed by the Trump Justice Department to hunt for problems in the origins of the Russia investigation, John Durham, did find flaws, but not related to what Gabbard sought to highlight in her report.
“Few episodes in our nation’s history have been investigated as thoroughly as the Intelligence Community’s warning in 2016 that Russia was interfering in the election,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
He added that every legitimate investigation, including the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee probe, “found no evidence of politicization and endorsed the findings” of an intelligence committee assessment on Russian interference made public in 2017.
Gabbard’s document was released weeks after a CIA report that reexamined that earlier intelligence community assessment. That new review, ordered by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, did not dispute Russia had interfered but suggested officials were rushed in the assessment they reached.
Trump administration is seeking investigations of former officials
Ratcliffe has since referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the Justice Department for investigation, a person familiar with the matter has said. The department earlier this month appeared to acknowledge an open investigation into Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey in an unusual statement, but the status and contours of the inquiries are unclear.
Besides Obama, Trump on Tuesday rattled off a list of people he accused of acting criminally “at the highest level,” including Comey, his 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and former national intelligence director James Clapper.
He accused Obama, without evidence, of being the “ringleader” of a conspiracy to get him. Obama has never been accused of any wrongdoing as part of the Russia investigation, and, in any event, a landmark Supreme Court opinion from last year shields former presidents from prosecution for official acts conducted in office.
Trump launched his tirade when asked about the Justice Department’s effort to speak with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of Epstein, who was convicted of helping the financier sexually abuse underage girls.
“I don’t really follow that too much,” he said. “It’s sort of a witch hunt, a continuation of the witch hunt.”
Trump is under pressure from conspiracy-minded segments of his political base to release more about the Epstein case. Democrats say Trump is resisting because of his past association with Epstein. Trump has denied knowledge of or involvement with Epstein’s crimes and said he ended their friendship years ago.
Trump rehashes years-old grievances on Russia investigation after new intelligence report
https://arab.news/y4hag
Trump rehashes years-old grievances on Russia investigation after new intelligence report
Trump sues the BBC for defamation over editing of January 6 speech, seeks up to $10 billion in damages
- A BBC spokesperson told Reuters earlier on Monday that it had “no further contact from President Trump’s lawyers at this point
- The BBC is funded through a mandatory license fee on all TV viewers, which UK lawyers say could make any payout to Trump politically fraught
WASHING: President Donald Trump sued the BBC on Monday for defamation over edited clips of a speech that made it appear he directed supporters to storm the US Capitol, opening an international front in his fight against media coverage he deems untrue or unfair. Trump accused Britain’s publicly owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021 speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol and another where he said “fight like hell.” It omitted a section in which he called for peaceful protest.
Trump’s lawsuit alleges the BBC defamed him and violated a Florida law that bars deceptive and unfair trade practices. He is seeking $5 billion in damages for each of the lawsuit’s two counts. The BBC has apologized to Trump, admitted an error of judgment and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action. But it has said there is no legal basis to sue.
Trump, in his lawsuit filed Monday in Miami federal court, said the BBC despite its apology “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses.”
The BBC is funded through a mandatory license fee on all TV viewers, which UK lawyers say could make any payout to Trump politically fraught.
A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement the BBC “has a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda.”
A BBC spokesperson told Reuters earlier on Monday that it had “no further contact from President Trump’s lawyers at this point. Our position remains the same.” The broadcaster did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed.
CRISIS LED TO RESIGNATIONS
Facing one of the biggest crises in its 103-year history, the BBC has said it has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary on any of its platforms.
The dispute over the clip, featured on the BBC’s “Panorama” documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, sparked a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.
Trump’s lawyers say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.
The documentary drew scrutiny after the leak of a BBC memo by an external standards adviser that raised concerns about how it was edited, part of a wider investigation of political bias at the publicly funded broadcaster.
The documentary was not broadcast in the United States.
Trump may have sued in the US because defamation claims in Britain must be brought within a year of publication, a window that has closed for the “Panorama” episode.
To overcome the US Constitution’s legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove not only that the edit was false and defamatory but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.
The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the program did not damage Trump’s reputation.
Other media have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.
Trump has filed lawsuits against the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all three of which have denied wrongdoing. The attack on the US Capitol in January 2021 was aimed at blocking Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s presidential win over Trump in the 2020 US election.









