NOTE: VIDEO AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE.
A recently declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee has ignited fresh controversy by revealing that U.S. intelligence agencies under former President Barack Obama were aware in 2016 of damaging allegations about Hillary Clinton’s mental and physical health—claims that Russian operatives had obtained through hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) communications. Yet, crucially, this information was not made public or incorporated into the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which concluded that Russia aimed to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
The document, declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, was originally dated September 18, 2020. It exposes a side of the 2016 election interference narrative that has largely been overlooked: the existence of intelligence indicating Clinton’s struggles with serious health issues that Russia possessed but did not ultimately release publicly.
According to the report, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) gained access to internal DNC communications containing claims that Clinton was on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers” due to “intensified psycho-emotional problems.” The documents further cited Clinton’s chronic health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and deep vein thrombosis.
U.S. intelligence officials reportedly knew about these assessments at the time. However, the report criticizes the 2017 ICA’s conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin developed a “clear preference” for Trump and actively sought to help him win. The report states that this conclusion “did not adhere to the tenets of the ICD (Intelligence Community Directive) analytical standards,” noting that Putin’s choice not to publicly release damaging information on Clinton in the final weeks of the campaign casts doubt on claims of Russian collusion designed to assist Trump.
Despite the serious nature of the Russian intelligence regarding Clinton’s health, this information was never disclosed publicly or included in official assessments. Instead, senior intelligence officials focused on Russia’s role in leaking relatively limited damaging material from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The report highlights that President Obama and other senior Democrats found the Russian intelligence “extraordinarily alarming” but chose not to address or release it.
The findings raise important questions about the motivation behind Russia’s interference. The report points out, “[I]t is difficult to justify” the intelligence community’s judgement that Putin “aspired” to help Trump by discrediting Clinton, given that the alleged explosive material was never injected into the campaign by Russia.
The report also refers to a DNC email intercepted by Russian operatives, which detailed a campaign strategy approved by Clinton to link Trump to Russian hackers in order to “distract the public” from her private email server scandal. This detail, too, was omitted from the ICA.
The analysis, finalized under former Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), argues that Obama-era intelligence selectively emphasized evidence supporting the collusion narrative while ignoring data that complicated or contradicted it. Clinton’s health had already been a matter of public speculation during the 2016 race. NBC News had reported in September 2016 that Clinton nearly collapsed at a 9/11 memorial and was later diagnosed with pneumonia—a diagnosis that her campaign initially withheld, sparking further scrutiny. Additionally, Clinton was hospitalized in 2012 after a concussion revealed a blood clot in her brain.
Throughout the campaign, Clinton’s team dismissed concerns about her health as conspiracy theories, despite recurring incidents that fueled public doubt. The new revelations—that Russia held more extensive and damaging information and that U.S. intelligence chose not to include it in public assessments—add significant context to the narrative of 2016 election interference.
Critics argue this omission undermines the claim that Russia’s sole intent was to help Trump. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, commented on social media, “If Russia was really all-in on supporting Trump and hurting Clinton, it would have leaked this information in October 2016 when her lead in the polls dropped sharply.”
As the political implications of these revelations unfold, questions remain about transparency and selective intelligence disclosures during one of the most contentious elections in recent American history. While the debate continues, it is clear that the 2016 interference narrative is far more complex than initially portrayed—and the full story may only just be emerging.
PLAY:
