While the media focused on the two dueling intelligence assessments about Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election, a deeper look into Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s explosive document release last week reveals a disturbing email exchange about the infamous Steele dossier — and how it may have quietly contaminated national intelligence analysis.

Gabbard, now overseeing intelligence under President Donald J. Trump’s second administration, declassified a trove of documents Friday exposing how senior Obama-era officials handled the Russian interference narrative during the final stretch of the 2016 campaign between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

One of the initial Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) stated clearly that there was little evidence of serious interference and that any cyber activity by Russia “had no impact on recent U.S. election results.” But Gabbard noted something strange: that particular PDB, dated December 8, 2016, was pulled from circulation and never delivered.

What replaced it? A brand-new document, issued just weeks later, claiming far greater confidence in Russia’s alleged efforts to help the Trump campaign. According to Gabbard, Obama’s then-DNI James Clapper initiated the replacement document immediately after the original PDB was withheld.

The most unsettling revelation, however, lies buried in the annex of Gabbard’s 114-page release: a redacted email chain among intelligence officials discussing the Steele dossier — the discredited opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was weaponized against Trump’s team.

The emails were unearthed as part of a 2019 FOIA request filed by Kimberly Hermann of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a constitutional law group that has been tracking the dossier’s spread through federal channels.

One email, dated September 18, 2019, from a redacted Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) staffer, raises serious concerns about the dossier’s role in shaping assessments during the Obama years. Initially addressing technical search issues, the message takes a dark turn:

“I am choosing my words carefully, for your awareness, because the premise of the message is concerning.”

The unnamed official revealed that they had served on the Cyber and Election Security teams between 2015 and 2019 and took part in the creation of the non-compartmented version of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — and critically, “it included no dossier reference that I recall.”

More troubling, the official indicated that if dossier material had been used in compartmented versions — versions they were cleared to see — but intentionally withheld from them, then senior officials may have engaged in deliberate deception:

“IF the Dossier material WAS used by the NIC… my NIO intentionally deceived and excluded me from things I was cleared for and had need to know… We have a problem.”

The superior’s reply was dismissive, insisting it’s “routine that we get material and don’t share it with everyone.” But that raises even more red flags: what classified intelligence was cherry-picked or hidden to ensure a politically favorable narrative?

While redactions make it difficult to determine the full scope of this potential internal sabotage, Gabbard evidently believed the email chain was damning enough to warrant inclusion. The cryptic, backroom nature of the exchange is now drawing scrutiny from FBI Director Kash Patel, who is reportedly seeking the names behind the redactions.

If these suspicions hold, it would suggest the intelligence community under Barack Obama engaged in covert manipulation — possibly bypassing even its own analysts — to seed the phony Russia narrative that hounded President Trump for years.