During a bombshell briefing, Gabbard laid out findings from a once-classified House Intelligence Committee report. According to the document, Russian President Vladimir Putin held back on leaking damaging materials about then-candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016—not because he wanted Donald Trump to win, but because he expected Clinton to take the White House. The plan, Gabbard explained, was to release the intel after her presumed victory to weaken her presidency from the start.

But the American people never heard a word of it. Why? Gabbard alleges that Brennan and the broader intelligence community intentionally suppressed this information in the official post-election assessment ordered by President Obama. Instead, the CIA manufactured what she calls a “contrived false narrative” that Russia supported Trump—fueling the now-debunked “collusion” hoax that dominated headlines for years.

The Russian material, according to the report, included evidence of potential criminal acts involving the Clinton campaign and high-level DNC communications. Among the most explosive claims: secret meetings between Clinton’s State Department and U.S. religious organizations that were allegedly offered increased funding in exchange for support. Also in the cache were emails documenting Clinton’s alleged “psycho-emotional problems” and supposed daily use of “heavy tranquilizers.”

Rather than acknowledge this intel, Brennan’s CIA allegedly relied on flimsy, unverified sources to push the idea that Putin had a “clear preference” for Trump. But Gabbard says that assumption is now dead. If Putin truly wanted Trump, she argues, the obvious move would have been to leak the dirt on Hillary before the election—not sit on it.

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk echoed that point, tweeting that if Russia wanted Trump to win, the information would’ve been dropped in October 2016, when Clinton’s poll lead was slipping. Instead, the CIA buried the truth and spun an alternative reality—one that undermined Trump’s legitimacy and sparked years of divisive investigations.

Gabbard’s release of the report has reignited fury over the politicization of intelligence agencies during the Obama years. It also casts a new light on the media and Democratic narrative that Russia “hacked” the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. If this suppressed information had been made public, the post-election chaos and endless “collusion” investigations might never have happened.

Instead, Brennan’s actions—as outlined in the report—helped preserve Clinton’s image and shield the Democratic Party from deeper scrutiny. With potential evidence of criminal behavior and severe health issues kept under wraps, voters were denied vital facts about one of the most powerful political figures in the country.

Now, Gabbard’s revelations are forcing a long-overdue reckoning. Not only did Russia allegedly have the goods on Hillary, but Obama-era officials actively hid it from the public. That’s not just political malpractice—it’s a deliberate betrayal of the American people’s right to know.

And it proves once again: the real “election interference” came from inside the house.