- Two leading conservative editorials from National Review and The Wall Street Journal reject Trump and Tulsi Gabbard’s “treason” claim against Obama officials, while affirming abuse of power during the Russia probe. The analysis underscores the tension between legitimate intelligence authority and political weaponization, warning against the revival of partisan lawfare in the 2025 environment.
NEW YORK, NY (TDR) — In a rare moment of alignment, National Review and The Wall Street Journal have each released editorials rejecting President Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s recent claim that President Obama and his senior aides engaged in a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Trump’s 2016 candidacy and early presidency.
While both publications agree that the Obama administration exploited the now-debunked Steele dossier to smear Trump, they stop short of endorsing Gabbard’s broader charge of intentional subversion by the intelligence community.
Acknowledging a Historic Abuse of Power
In its editorial, National Review acknowledged what many constitutionalists have long held:
“Trump was the victim of one of the most insidious dirty tricks in American political history. The Clinton campaign used the bogus ‘Steele dossier’ to manufacture the Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ narrative. Obama administration officials picked up this story and ran with it.”
However, the editors rejected Trump and Gabbard’s expansion of the theory — specifically their rejection of any Russian interference whatsoever:
“Trump and Gabbard go further, treating the accurate portion of the Democratic narrative as though it too were a fiction. Russia did indeed try, however ineffectively, to interfere in the election,” the magazine wrote, citing corroboration from Trump’s own CIA Director, John Ratcliffe.
This echoes a recent CIA report reaffirming that the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was “on solid footing” in concluding, with high confidence, that Russian cyber operations sought to undermine Hillary Clinton and bolster Trump.
Parsing the Clapper Emails
Gabbard recently publicized 2016 emails from then-DNI James Clapper in which he stated that Russian actors had not conducted cyberattacks. However, National Review clarified that Clapper’s emails referred specifically to election infrastructure — not to broader interference operations such as the DNC hacks or information warfare campaigns:
“Russia probed that infrastructure for weaknesses but did not ultimately engage in any operation that undermined vote-counting,” the editorial explained. “The ICA was focused on something else: Russian cyber operations along the lines of hacking the DNC and churning out anti-Clinton campaign messaging.”
In this light, the magazine concedes that the Obama administration had the legal authority — even the obligation — to investigate Russian espionage. What it condemns is how that authority was manipulated:
“Exploiting it to taint Trump was an appalling abuse of power,” the editorial stated, while cautioning against inflating political abuse into prosecutable treason.
A Reminder on Presidential Immunity
National Review also emphasized the danger of weaponizing such claims, noting that Trump and his allies have vigorously asserted immunity from prosecution for actions taken within the executive’s constitutional bounds:
“Those who would argue that this abuse of power constitutes a crime should remember that Trump and his team have avidly proclaimed that presidents must have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the broad ambit of executive power.”
The editorial concluded plainly:
“We have had enough, more than enough, lawfare.”
The Journal Strikes a Similar Note
In its own editorial, The Wall Street Journal echoed this skepticism toward Gabbard’s framing, though it acknowledged that her document “adds to the known facts.” The Journal criticized the report’s rhetorical overreach:
“Much of her summary document is focused on the lack of evidence that U.S. adversaries in 2016 hacked election infrastructure or manipulated vote totals,” the editorial observed. “She also seeks to cast doubt on the notion that Vladimir Putin preferred Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton.”
The Journal responded by citing the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report — released by then-Acting Chairman Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State — which concluded:
“Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.”
The Journal ended on a cautionary note about Trump’s renewed threats to prosecute political enemies:
“By calling to ‘go after people,’ Mr. Trump is demanding more partisan lawfare… Now Mr. Trump is back in power, after telling voters he would end the ‘weaponization’ of law enforcement. That lawfare backfired on Democrats, and our guess is that it would do the same on Republicans and Mr. Trump.”
Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube
Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.