• Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy sharply criticized DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s public release of emails and DOJ referral. Gabbard alleges a politicized Obama-era intelligence campaign against President Trump, including Russiagate. McCarthy labels her claims overwrought, noting CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s report contradicts her assertions. Critics counter that while Russia did interfere, claims of a “manufactured coup” lack credible evidence.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — In an intensifying clash over presidential election integrity, Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy lambasted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for her recent release of emails and a criminal referral accusing the Obama administration of orchestrating a “coup” against President Trump.

Gabbard’s press release asserts that her new evidence reveals “overwhelming evidence that… Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence” aimed at undermining Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016. She also transmitted classified documents and urged the Department of Justice to investigate.

“Perhaps that is because Gabbard’s intelligence community peer, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, did issue an analytical report… that contradicts Gabbard’s implication that there was no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election,” McCarthy wrote in National Review.

Clash of Intelligence Perspectives

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

McCarthy reproached Gabbard’s disclosures as lacking analytical rigor, contrasting them with Ratcliffe’s methodical assessment. He continues:

“The public position of President Trump and his most ardent supporters… was that Russiagate was a total hoax… This has always been a foolish stance.”

While McCarthy concedes Russia’s traditional foreign influence operations, he highlights that Ratcliffe’s report affirms interference took place in 2016—even as it did not substantially affect the election outcome. Gabbard’s suggestion that the dossier and intelligence assessments were “manufactured” by Democrats, he argues, is an overreach.

Revisiting the Steele Dossier and ICA

Gabbard’s release contends that the Steele dossier and the ICA formed the basis of partisan smears, fueling Mueller’s investigation, two impeachment inquiries, and heightened tensions with Russia. McCarthy rebuts:

“No one who was prosecuted… was charged with offences related to the Steele dossier or the ICA… [and] Trump’s two impeachments pertained to Ukraine and the Capitol riot—neither had anything to do with Russiagate.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

He adds that Russian aggression in Ukraine—not intelligence disclosures—accounts for current Russia–U.S. tensions.

Broader Lessons in Intelligence Disclosure

The dispute highlights a tension within the intelligence community: the risk of politicizing classified information versus the public’s right to understand how foreign influence operations shape policy. McCarthy’s critique signals concern at releasing documents without substantive analysis or corroboration.

Looking Forward

This exchange gains dimension as Gabbard advances referrals to the DOJ, raising the question of whether executive branch officials can or should use public disclosures to instigate criminal inquiries against recent administrations. Ratcliffe’s contrasting report frames a more measured narrative of limited interference without asserting grand conspiracy.

As the debate roils within conservative and intelligence circles, the public may find itself asked to weigh trust in classified findings against expectations of transparency. Justice demands both clarity and restraint—balance that remains elusive in politically charged waters.

Will Gabbard’s actions prompt serious legal inquiry—or simply deepen partisan divides over intelligence and integrity?

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10