They Classified It So No One Could See It: The Obama Team's War on a Duly Elected President

Clinton Cash, 17 FISA Errors, One Direction: The Anatomy of the Russia Hoax

Consider what it takes to lie to a free people at scale. A private liar can deceive a neighbor. A campaign can deceive a district. But to deceive an entire nation, and to do it durably, you need something rarer. You need an institution the public has been trained to trust, and you need to borrow its authority. The intelligence community is that institution. When career officers say a thing is so, citizens reasonably assume the judgment rests on secret evidence too sensitive to share. That trust is precisely what makes the apparatus so dangerous when it is turned, because a borrowed badge of credibility can launder a falsehood into a fact. This is the heart of the matter, and it is why the events of 2016 through 2020 deserve a stark description. The coordinated politicization of US intelligence by the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and an interlocking network of operatives was the single greatest disinformation campaign in American history.

I want to be careful with that claim, because careless conservatives have squandered credibility by overreaching, and the fact-checkers are waiting. So let me say plainly what I am not arguing. This was not treason in the strict constitutional sense, which requires levying war against the US or adhering to its enemies, proven by two witnesses to an overt act. That high bar is not met here, and pretending otherwise only hands critics an easy rebuttal. What I am arguing is more precise and, in some ways, more damning. The conduct fits the ordinary legal definition of conspiracy, a secret agreement to achieve unlawful ends through unlawful means, and it carries the unmistakable character of sedition, the deliberate poisoning of public perception against a lawful government. The aim was to subvert an election and, having failed at that, to cripple the presidency the voters chose.

Begin with the money, because money leaves a paper trail, and the trail here is not seriously contested. The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee routed roughly $1.02 million to the law firm Perkins Coie for what they would later report to regulators as legal services. Perkins Coie retained the research firm Fusion GPS, which in turn hired a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele, paying his firm roughly $168,000. The product of this arrangement was the now-infamous Steele dossier, a collection of unverified and largely uncorroborated allegations. The political origin of that document is not a matter of conjecture. In 2022 the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign $8,000 and the DNC $105,000 for misreporting these payments as legal expenses rather than the opposition research they were. A campaign paid for a smear, mislabeled it, and then the smear migrated into the machinery of federal law enforcement.

That migration is the crucial step, and it is where ordinary dirty politics became something far worse. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a full investigation, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Clinton-funded dossier quickly became central to the government’s applications for surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, targeting Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Here the nonpartisan record is devastating. The Justice Department’s own Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions across the four FISA applications and renewals. Notice the pattern, because the pattern is the proof of intent. These were not random clerical mistakes scattered in both directions. Every one of them cut the same way, strengthening the appearance of probable cause while burying exculpatory facts. The applications failed to tell the court that Page had been a cooperative contact for another US government agency, that he had supplied information on Russian intelligence officers, and that he had been assessed as candid. They failed to update the court on the collapsing reliability of Steele’s own primary source. As Horowitz testified, the applications made it appear that the evidence was far stronger than it actually was. When error runs in one direction 17 times, the kind word is recklessness and the accurate word is design.

If the FISA abuse was the operation’s sword, the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 was its seal. And it is here that the most recent disclosures matter most. According to a tradecraft review conducted by career CIA analysts and made public by Director John Ratcliffe in 2025, the assessment that branded the incoming president with the Russia narrative was corrupted from the top. There was no statutory requirement to produce it before the transition. Ratcliffe stated bluntly that Barack Obama commissioned the assessment, that there was no basis requiring it to be finished before the Obama administration ended, and that the instruction was, in effect, that the president wanted it done. The review documents a production process that no honest analyst would defend. Drafters had less than a week. Coordination was crammed into a holiday week, leaving participants feeling jammed. Brennan hand-selected the analysts. Thirteen of the then 17 intelligence agencies were excluded. Most telling of all, when the CIA’s two senior Russia experts warned that the Steele dossier did not meet even basic tradecraft standards and risked the credibility of the entire paper, Brennan pushed to include it anyway. It landed in an annex with a disclaimer, then was quietly referenced in the main text, lending unearned weight to the judgment it was supposedly walled off from. Ratcliffe’s summary is the one to remember. This, he said, was Obama, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan deciding to screw Trump, stamping it as Russian collusion, and then classifying it so nobody could see it.

Then came the long aftermath, the years a manufactured scandal consumed. The Mueller investigation, after nearly two years and tens of millions of dollars, reached the conclusion that quietly demolished the entire edifice. It did not establish that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. The central allegation, the one the FISA warrants and the ICA were built to support, simply was not there. The Durham special counsel later found that the FBI should never have opened a full investigation on the thin and uncorroborated intelligence it possessed, and that confirmation bias pervaded the effort from the start. The dossier’s primary source could not corroborate its substantial allegations. A reasonable observer might ask how a story this thoroughly discredited survived for years. The answer is the borrowed badge. Credentialed officials and a compliant press kept the corpse upright long after the autopsy was complete.

The most powerful evidence that this was a coordinated operation rather than a series of unrelated lapses is that the same people ran the same play again in 2020. On October 19 of that year, five days after the New York Post published authenticated material from Hunter Biden’s laptop, 51 former intelligence officials, Brennan and Clapper among them, signed a public letter declaring that the story bore all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. It was not. The laptop was genuine, the FBI had possessed it since 2019, and no Russian campaign was involved. Congressional investigators later found that the letter was coordinated with the Biden campaign to furnish debate talking points. Ratcliffe drew the line between the two episodes himself. It is the same people, he observed. In 2020 the message was that they had to lie to win the election. In 2016 and after, the message was that having failed to influence the election, they would handicap the president to win the next one by polluting the well. Recognize the symmetry. First the credentialed lie to manufacture a scandal that was false, then the credentialed lie to bury a scandal that was true. The instrument was identical, the trusted voice of American intelligence, deployed in service of one party.

What, then, is to be done? The honest answer is that justice here will be slow and unglamorous, and conservatives should brace for that. The veteran prosecutor Joseph diGenova and his team, surveying the wreckage, concluded that the sprawl of alleged wrongdoing, ranging from falsifying evidence and perjury to leaking classified information and obstructing justice, is simply too vast to bundle into one grand unified prosecution. A single mega-case spanning years, dozens of actors, and a tangle of statutes would collapse under its own weight before a jury. So the sober path runs the other way, through discrete and provable cases pursued along non-obvious routes, building accountability piece by piece rather than staging one cathartic trial that overpromises and fails. This is not retreat. It is how serious prosecutors win.

Skeptics will say this is a partisan reading, and they are entitled to test it. But the documentary spine of this account does not come from talk radio. It comes from a Justice Department Inspector General, a special counsel, the Federal Election Commission, congressional committees, and the CIA’s own career analysts. As the Heritage Foundation and writers at outlets like The Federalist have long argued, the through line is the weaponization of the permanent bureaucracy against the voters’ choice. The Church Committee of the 1970s exposed an earlier generation of domestic political spying and built FISA to stop it. The lesson of the last decade is that the reforms held only until the target became sufficiently inconvenient. A republic that lets its intelligence agencies pick its presidents is no longer choosing them. That is the stake, and it is why this story is not yet finished.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe https://x.com/amuse/creator-subscriptions/subscribe

---

Alexander Muse is a Fellow at the John Milton Freedom Foundation and publishes daily political analysis at amuseonx.com. Primary sources cited in this piece are linked inline; campaign finance figures are drawn from FEC filings, polling data from publicly released crosstabs, and legal claims from filed pleadings. Corrections are posted to the original URL with a dated changelog. Readers who identify errors are invited to contact the author directly.