A New Bombshell from the Intelligence Community
In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace after trying to cover up a third-rate burglary. That scandal—Watergate—has long defined political corruption in America. But newly declassified testimony from a senior intelligence official suggests something far worse may have occurred in the wake of the 2016 election.
According to a whistleblower who served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer (DNIO) for Cyber and Election Influence, U.S. intelligence leaders may have manipulated the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference to create the appearance that Moscow helped elect Donald Trump. The official, whose name is redacted, testified under oath that he was pressured to “alter [his] views” to support the final conclusions, and that dissenting analysis was excluded or suppressed.
From Cyber Analyst to Whistleblower
The official led production of the original 2016 ICA on cyber threats and later contributed to the post-election 2017 ICA—the document publicly cited as proof that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win. But his testimony says he disagreed with how that conclusion was framed, and was pressured to go along with it anyway.
He objected to wording that portrayed Russia’s actions as an effort to “influence the election,” rather than a more general attempt to “undermine public faith” in democracy. He also claimed the ICA omitted context about other foreign governments, including U.S. allies, that engaged in similar influence attempts—context he says was necessary for any balanced analysis.
Analysis Abandoned, Evidence Withheld
One of the more serious revelations is that the whistleblower was told to cease analysis of suspicious cyber activity involving Russian IP addresses targeting U.S. election infrastructure. He later came to believe this activity may have involved manipulation of DNS records by U.S. persons—a potentially criminal act—and that further investigation was intentionally blocked.
He also revealed that while he was contributing to the ICA, he was denied access to evidence supposedly supporting claims that Russia favored Trump. As a DNIO, he should have been allowed to review the material. He testified:
“I did not assess at that time that this indicated Russian goals were… to influence the 2016 US Presidential election itself.”
The Steele Dossier — Back from the Dead
In 2019, he received an internal email showing that an assessment of the discredited Steele Dossier was included as an annex to the 2017 ICA—a direct contradiction of what he’d been told for years. The dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign, had already been debunked as unreliable by the time of the ICA’s release.
He says he was deliberately misled about its role and was later removed from internal communications channels after raising concerns. His attempts to notify the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG), the Department of Justice, and Special Counsel Durham led nowhere.
Despite providing detailed documentation and sitting for multiple in-person interviews, he was never contacted again.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
Watergate in Perspective — and Why This May Be Worse
Watergate was a scandal, no doubt—but not the way most people remember it.
President Nixon did not order the infamous break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in June 1972. That operation was carried out by men tied to his re-election campaign. What Nixon did do was attempt to cover it up: he ordered the CIA to block the FBI investigation, arranged hush money, and lied to the public.
The crime was bad. The cover-up was worse. And when audio tapes revealed Nixon’s role, he resigned in August 1974 to avoid certain impeachment.
What the new testimony describes is something more systemic: a deliberate shaping of intelligence by career officials inside the U.S. government—before Trump took office—to create the perception that he was illegitimately elected with Russian help.
That perception didn’t end with the report. It became the basis for years of public suspicion, media narratives, and Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, where Democrats accused him of abusing foreign policy for political gain. The foundation for it all was the same: the idea that Trump’s 2016 win was tainted by foreign interference.
If Watergate was a president obstructing justice, this testimony suggests parts of the intelligence community preemptively influenced the democratic process itself, and then faced no accountability for it.
What Comes Next
The mainstream press has so far ignored the July 28 release. But Republicans in Congress are already raising alarms, and the whistleblower’s claims may spark new investigations into the origins of the Russia probe, the FISA abuse tied to Carter Page, and the FBI’s role in Crossfire Hurricane.
Whether anything comes of it remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: if the public was sold a narrative based on suppressed intelligence and manufactured consensus, this isn’t just a scandal. It’s a historic breach of trust—and one that may make Watergate look, in hindsight, like amateur hour.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #russiagate #intelcommunity #trump4547
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply