Clinton Approved Plan To ‘Smear’ Trump With Fake Russia Collusion: Docs
Newly declassified documents reveal that twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed a strategy devised by one of her campaign aides to “smear” then-candidate Donald Trump with unfounded allegations of Russian involvement and divert attention from her own growing email issue during the 2016 race.
The strategy called for “raising the theme of ‘Putin’s support for Trump'” and “subsequently steering public opinion toward the notion that it needs to equate” genuine electoral infrastructure tampering with the Russian leader’s political influence effort.
“Clinton approved a plan proposed by one of her foreign policy advisors, Julianne Smith, to ‘smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal tied to the intrusion by the Russian special services in the pre-election process to benefit the Republican candidate,’” one of the declassified
memos read.
Special Counsel John Durham discovered the information during a multi-year investigation into intelligence operations related to the 2016 election.
At Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) request, FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and other US intelligence officials declassified the files from Durham’s investigation.
“Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means,” Grassley said in a statement.
“These intelligence reports and related records, whether true or false, were buried for years. History will show that the Obama and Biden administrations’ law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump,” he added.
“This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. The new Trump administration has a tremendous responsibility to the American people to fix the damage done and do so with maximum speed and transparency.”
Last week, Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released newly declassified memos that also showed U.S. intelligence officials concluded Russia did not play a significant role in Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Paul Sperry, a senior reporter for Real Clear Investigations, took to X to report that sources informed him that there are damning text messages and emails showing coordination between the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign aides.
“DEVELOPING: I’m told there are texts/emails indicating Hillary Clinton campaign aides directly coordinated with the Obama White House, NSC, State Dept and Intelligence Community officials in efforts to dig up dirt tying Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin in July 2016 …developing…” Perry wrote on X.
The documents released by Gabbard are the clearest proof yet that officials within the Obama administration had serious doubts about Russian interference, even as they proceeded with the investigation.
The memo, dated 2016, told then-President Barack Obama directly that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
While acknowledging prior reports about a possible breach of Illinois voter rolls and failed targeting attempts in other states, the memo clearly states that those efforts never compromised voting systems—and didn’t come close to altering results.
“The targeting of infrastructure not used in casting ballots makes it highly unlikely it would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote,” the document reads. It goes further: “Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes.”
The disclosure is a major vindication for Trump, who has long argued that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax pushed by the Clinton campaign and Obama intelligence officials to sabotage his presidency before it began.
And now the pressure is turning on the people who pushed it.
FBI officials are preparing the groundwork for a possible criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, and others involved in launching and running the Crossfire Hurricane probe.
This documents falsely claimed connections between Trump and Russian agents.
The Federal Move That Could Reshape Los Angeles — And Reignite America’s Homelessness Debate
Los Angeles has spent years trying to confront one of the most visible and politically difficult crises in America: homelessness.
Billions in public spending, emergency programs, housing initiatives, outreach campaigns, and years of policy experimentation have attempted to address conditions that continue to affect neighborhoods across the city. Yet despite unprecedented investment, public frustration has remained high.
Now, a major federal funding suspension and an expanding review process are placing Los Angeles’ homelessness response system under a level of scrutiny that could carry consequences far beyond Southern California.
At the center of the controversy is the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LASA), an agency that has played a central role in coordinating housing and homelessness programs throughout the region.
Federal officials, according to reports and public discussion surrounding the review, have raised concerns regarding oversight practices, financial controls, administrative safeguards, and whether current structures sufficiently protect taxpayer resources.
The move has immediately transformed what was once primarily a local policy challenge into a national political and governance debate.
A Growing Federal Spotlight on Public Spending
The latest developments emerged after reports indicated that federal housing-related funding connected to homelessness initiatives may face temporary suspension while investigators continue reviewing operational and financial procedures.
Officials involved in the review reportedly cited concerns involving internal controls, compliance structures, accountability mechanisms, and broader questions surrounding program effectiveness.
While no final findings have been announced, the decision alone signals an unusually aggressive level of federal oversight. That shift matters.
Los Angeles has become one of the most watched examples in the national homelessness conversation because of both the scale of the crisis and the scale of spending directed toward solving it.
Over recent years, agencies connected to homelessness response efforts have overseen enormous funding streams intended to support emergency shelter, housing access, outreach operations, treatment services, case management, and stabilization programs.
Supporters argue those investments reflect the complexity of modern homelessness.
Critics increasingly ask a different question:
If so much money has been invested, why do visible conditions remain so difficult across many communities?
Why This Debate Has Become Politically Explosive
Homelessness has evolved into one of the defining political issues in Los Angeles.
Residents continue raising concerns about encampments, public safety, sanitation, addiction treatment capacity, mental health services, and the availability of permanent housing solutions.
Political leaders across ideological lines have faced growing pressure to demonstrate measurable progress.
As frustration rises, spending itself has become part of the debate.
Supporters of stronger oversight argue that public trust depends not only on funding programs but also on proving that those programs deliver results.
They say transparency becomes especially important when large taxpayer investments are involved.
Others caution that judging outcomes purely through visible street conditions ignores the broader reality of homelessness policy.
Services often extend beyond shelter alone and include medical care, prevention programs, outreach networks, legal assistance, long-term housing support, and crisis intervention systems.
From that perspective, measuring success is more complicated than counting visible encampments.
The Numbers Conversation — And Why It’s More Complicated Than It Looks
One reason the issue continues generating national attention is the scale involved.
Reports frequently reference tens of thousands of individuals experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County, making the region one of the largest service environments in the United States.
Those figures have fueled public calculations comparing total expenditures against estimated population counts.
Critics argue those comparisons suggest inefficient spending.
Program defenders respond that such calculations oversimplify costs associated with housing development, healthcare delivery, addiction recovery services, staffing, infrastructure, emergency response systems, and compliance requirements.
Both arguments now collide under increasing public scrutiny.
And that tension may ultimately become one of the defining policy battles of the coming years.
The Debate Expanded Beyond Homelessness
The federal review has also reignited broader conversations surrounding governance, public accountability, and institutional trust.
Questions have emerged about how large public-service systems operate, how oversight should function, and whether existing structures incentivize measurable outcomes.
Separate public debates have referenced concerns involving voter registration practices among vulnerable populations and how administrative safeguards should operate in public-facing systems.
Election officials and legal experts have repeatedly emphasized that isolated cases should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of widespread systemic abuse.
At the same time, critics continue arguing that stronger oversight remains necessary to maintain public confidence.
These debates increasingly overlap, creating a conversation that now extends well beyond homelessness itself.
Los Angeles Faces a Difficult Balancing Act
City leaders and organizations connected to homelessness programs have pushed back against suggestions that large-scale wrongdoing has been established.
Supporters warn that interruptions to funding could impact services relied upon by vulnerable residents.
That concern highlights the central challenge facing policymakers.
How do governments demand stronger accountability without disrupting care for people already living in crisis?
There are no easy answers.
But one reality appears increasingly difficult to ignore:
Public patience is wearing thin, and expectations for measurable outcomes continue rising.
What Happens Next May Extend Far Beyond California
Investigators, auditors, oversight officials, and legal authorities are expected to continue reviewing available information before any final conclusions are reached.
Until that process concludes, many allegations remain questions under examination rather than established findings.
But the broader impact may already be unfolding.
Because what happens next in Los Angeles could shape how cities across America structure homelessness programs, measure performance, distribute funding, and restore public trust.
This story is no longer only about one agency.
It has become a test of whether America’s largest cities can convince voters that ambitious social programs are capable of delivering visible results in an era of growing demands for accountability.
