It was a revelation that, even nearly a decade later, carried a shockwave capable of unsettling not just the foundations of American politics, but the global narrative we’ve come to accept about what really happened in 2016. This week, newly declassified intelligence files—released by none other than Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—revealed a chilling claim: Russian intelligence not only interfered in the 2016 election, but sat on explosive, deeply personal health information about Hillary Clinton, believing she would win anyway.
According to the newly public House Intelligence Committee report, Moscow’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR, had in its possession a trove of sensitive information about the former Secretary of State’s mental and physical well-being. And if accurate, the details read like a dark medical dossier that would have ended any campaign in its tracks.
The most damning revelations? That Clinton, 77, was reportedly struggling with a litany of serious health issues—including Type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and deep vein thrombosis—while simultaneously grappling with what Russian intelligence described as “intensified psycho-emotional problems.” Those problems, the report says, included “uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” To control these episodes, Clinton was allegedly placed on a “daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.”
And yet, perhaps the most shocking element is not that this information existed—but that Russian President Vladimir Putin chose not to weaponize it.
Why Hold Back?
The report, based on 20 interviews with U.S. intelligence officers and FBI agents, as well as direct reviews of source materials for the Obama-era report on Russian election meddling, paints a picture of calculated patience. According to the analysis, Putin and his intelligence chiefs believed Clinton would win the presidency. They opted not to reveal the data, potentially keeping it in reserve for leverage once she entered office.
In September 2016, internal Democratic Party communications referenced in the declassified files allegedly revealed that then-President Barack Obama and key party officials were deeply alarmed by Clinton’s physical state. Her health, they feared, might not just be a liability—it could prove catastrophic for her campaign.
And still, the Clinton campaign kept the extent of her conditions locked down with what the report calls “the strictest secrecy.” In the high-stakes game of presidential politics, the public perception of health can be just as important as the reality. And the campaign was determined to keep both out of sight.
The Ghost in the Server
But the revelations didn’t stop at health. The report also claims that the SVR had intercepted internal Democratic emails detailing a plan approved by Clinton herself—a strategy to link then-candidate Donald Trump to Russian hackers. The objective, according to the files: “Distract the [American] public from the Clinton email server scandal.”
If true, this strategy wasn’t simply political spin—it was a calculated effort to redirect national attention away from the private email controversy that had dogged Clinton throughout the race. In doing so, it may have laid the groundwork for what became the single most divisive political investigation of the next five years: Russiagate.
That connection didn’t go unnoticed by current Republican lawmakers.
Gabbard Breaks the Silence
At a White House briefing earlier this week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard made the extraordinary decision to not only release the documents, but to speak about them in stark, forceful language that has rarely been heard from someone in her position.
“We cannot run a Republic like this,” Gabbard told reporters. “I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.”
She added: “We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law. We are going to get the answers we all deserve—not ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth,’ but the truth.”
The files, she noted, raise grave questions not just about Clinton’s conduct, but about the Obama administration’s actions in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
A Coup in Motion?
Gabbard’s words echoed claims she’s made repeatedly in recent years—that the Trump-Russia narrative wasn’t just flawed, but was “manufactured” by the Obama administration to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it had even begun.
Now, she argues, the newly released documents support that theory. The inclusion of campaign communications referencing the desire to “link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump” is being cited as possible proof that the Clinton campaign, with quiet backing from Obama-era officials, crafted a narrative as both shield and sword.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), speaking after the press conference, went even further.
“Barack says, ‘Let’s change that narrative,’” Marshall told reporters. “‘Let’s go out there and delegitimize the election and tell the American people that Russia interfered with the election.’ Otherwise, how in the world could Hillary Clinton be beaten?”
He then added, pointedly, “Never mind that she was on tranquilizers at the time and to her wits’ end.”
The DOJ Strikes Back
Within hours of Gabbard’s disclosures, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a special “strike force” tasked with evaluating legal consequences and next steps arising from the revelations. The DOJ’s National Security Division is now reviewing the files and weighing whether criminal charges may be warranted—either for the alleged cover-up, the “manufacturing” of intelligence, or for obstruction of justice.
According to a source close to the probe, everything is on the table. “Nothing is being dismissed out of hand. The entire chain of command—Obama, Clinton, Comey, Brennan, you name it—is under review.”
This marks a radical shift in how the intelligence community’s actions in 2016 are being viewed. For years, critics of the Trump-Russia investigation have claimed it was built on flimsy intelligence and politically motivated leaks. With Gabbard’s declassification and the DOJ’s response, those claims are no longer fringe—they are now matters of federal interest.
Clinton’s Health: Political Taboo
Perhaps most taboo of all is the subject that even political rivals once hesitated to touch: Clinton’s health.
The former Secretary of State’s well-documented fainting spell at the 9/11 Memorial in 2016 ignited a storm of speculation, but her campaign swiftly attributed the incident to pneumonia. The new files suggest otherwise: that Democratic leaders knew her health was far more precarious and tried desperately to keep the public—and the press—in the dark.
According to the SVR intercepts cited in the report, Clinton was “obsessed with power,” even as her condition deteriorated. Foreign analysts reportedly observed her fluctuating moods, erratic public appearances, and periods of extended absence from the campaign trail. Their assessment, chilling in retrospect, described a woman “afraid of losing” but “more afraid of being irrelevant.”
Pardons and Leverage
Another subplot has emerged in the wake of the new disclosures: speculation that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and now convicted sex trafficker, may be trying to secure a presidential pardon from Trump.
According to sources familiar with her recent questioning by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Maxwell “didn’t hold back” when asked about Epstein’s connections to political elites. And as speculation mounts about what she may have revealed, many in Washington are wondering whether Trump is being drawn into a complex chess match involving leverage, legacy, and presidential power.
Asked whether he would consider pardoning Maxwell, Trump responded cryptically: “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about.”
That answer, like so many in this saga, only raises more questions than it answers.
What Happens Next?
In the court of public opinion, the question is no longer whether Russia interfered in 2016—that much has been settled. The question now is how deep the rabbit hole goes. Did Democratic officials conspire to shape public narratives with knowingly false information? Did the intelligence community become politicized under Obama? And did the Clinton campaign knowingly bury not just a scandal—but a medical crisis?
The answers may reshape everything we think we know about modern American democracy.
As Gabbard put it bluntly, “Things are happening. You just haven’t seen them yet.”
Ethan Blake is a skilled Creative Content Specialist with a talent for crafting engaging and thought-provoking narratives. With a strong background in storytelling and digital content creation, Ethan brings a unique perspective to his role at TheArchivists, where he curates and produces captivating content for a global audience.
Ethan holds a degree in Communications from Zurich University, where he developed his expertise in storytelling, media strategy, and audience engagement. Known for his ability to blend creativity with analytical precision, he excels at creating content that not only entertains but also connects deeply with readers.
At TheArchivists, Ethan specializes in uncovering compelling stories that reflect a wide range of human experiences. His work is celebrated for its authenticity, creativity, and ability to spark meaningful conversations, earning him recognition among peers and readers alike.
Passionate about the art of storytelling, Ethan enjoys exploring themes of culture, history, and personal growth, aiming to inspire and inform with every piece he creates. Dedicated to making a lasting impact, Ethan continues to push boundaries in the ever-evolving world of digital content.