Playback speed:
This article is part of the Virginia Christian Alliance’s continuing Constitutional Showdown series, examining threats to truth, justice, and the rule of law in America.
Proverbs 12:17 (KJV): “He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.”
Whether you support or oppose Donald Trump is irrelevant here. What follows is evidence from the declassified documents of the Obama administration’s conspiracy to subvert President Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency that speaks to something far greater than one man or one election. If officials can:
-
Silence truthful analysts and elevate false reports as fact,
-
Direct conclusions before evidence is reviewed,
-
Remove dissenting voices from the process—
…then the same machinery can be turned against any citizen, from any background. This is about defending truth and justice for everyone.
Inside the Intelligence War Room
In Part 1, we saw how declassified documents revealed that intelligence was reshaped to serve a political narrative before and after the 2016 election. Now, we go deeper through the testimony of a man who was inside the process.
An ODNI whistleblower — who helped assess cyber threats to U.S. elections — recounts how his professional judgment was valued… until it no longer aligned with the political storyline being crafted.
Before the election, the analysts concluded Russia lacked both the intent and the ability to alter the outcome, matching the record from Part 1. But once the outcome didn’t fit, those findings vanished from public view.
“As for the 2017 ICA’s judgment of a decisive Russian preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, I could not concur in good conscience based on information available, and my professional analytic judgment.” — ODNI Whistleblower
We would appreciate your donation.
The Pressure to Conform
Once the narrative shifted, pressure within the intelligence community followed:
-
Analysts were urged to endorse conclusions they couldn’t stand behind honestly.
-
Supporting evidence was withheld with instructions to “trust me.”
-
The Steele Dossier — Clinton-funded opposition research — was included despite widely recognized reliability issues.
When he questioned the conflicting intelligence, the whistleblower was removed from the process entirely.
FACTS THAT DESTROY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS
-
Russia’s intent and capability to change the election were assessed as nonexistent, then overwritten.
-
The Steele Dossier was included despite known detractions.
-
Analysts who dissented were pushed out of the process.
-
Leaks to media shaped public narrative before reports were finalized.
A Culture of Suppression
This was not healthy disagreement. It was top-down manipulation:
-
Conclusions made before evidence was assessed.
-
Dissenting voices excluded from final decisions.
-
Media narratives shaped before formal reports released.
We detailed in Part 1 how conclusions changed after Obama’s December 2016 order. The whistleblower now explains why — it wasn’t analysis; it was orchestration.
Constitutional and Legal Implications
This isn’t about defending a politician—it’s about protecting the rule of law:
-
Article II — Executive legitimacy compromised by politically distorted intelligence.
-
First Amendment — Denial of accurate information to the public.
-
Fourteenth Amendment — Equal protection violated by state-directed distortion of truth.
Statutes potentially violated:
-
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
-
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements
-
18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights
-
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Ephesians 5:11 (KJV): “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
A Call to Truth and Vigilance
The whistleblower’s testimony confirms the same abuse of power documented in Part 1 — and reminds us who pays the price for compromise. These tactics did not end in 2017. They evolved.
In Part 3, we will expose how this machinery has shifted into lawfare — prosecutions, ballot disputes, and media campaigns aimed at politically removing an opponent without public choice. The venue has changed, but the danger remains—and it is increasingly real for all Americans.
