In a powerful interview that has reignited debate across the political spectrum, former CIA Director John Ratcliffe has alleged that key Obama-era officials, including Hillary Clinton, may still face legal consequences for their roles in promoting what has now been widely discredited as the “Russia collusion” narrative tied to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Speaking recently with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, Ratcliffe made strong claims about a concerted effort to damage Trump’s candidacy through false intelligence, driven primarily by the Clinton campaign and supported by high-level figures within the intelligence community.

“This was a Hillary Clinton campaign scheme,” Ratcliffe stated plainly. “She pushed false claims to discredit Trump during the 2016 race.”

Ratcliffe Submits Criminal Referrals: Could Charges Still Be Filed?

Ratcliffe, who also served as Director of National Intelligence, confirmed that he had submitted multiple criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) against individuals involved in advancing the Russia collusion narrative. The referrals include names like Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and even former President Barack Obama himself.

While no indictments have yet been issued, Ratcliffe insists that the case is not closed.

“We’ve provided the Department of Justice with extensive intelligence that could form the basis for criminal charges. The effort to mislead the American people and weaponize the intelligence community should not go unpunished,” he said.

Ratcliffe also mentioned that others in the intelligence community, such as Tulsi Gabbard, have taken similar steps. Gabbard, a former congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate, has made her own referrals to the DOJ.

Tulsi Gabbard: “A Treasonous Conspiracy from the Top Down”

Just days before Ratcliffe’s explosive interview, Tulsi Gabbard publicly accused the Obama administration of orchestrating what she called a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine Trump’s election chances.

According to Gabbard, newly declassified documents suggest that the Russian collusion story was not just a political maneuver—it was a carefully directed operation involving multiple U.S. government agencies under Obama’s watch.

Gabbard submitted a formal request to the DOJ for a renewed investigation into the origins and motives behind the Russia probe, citing national security concerns and a breakdown in the public’s trust in intelligence institutions.

“This wasn’t just politics. It was an abuse of power at the highest level,” she said.

The Steele Dossier and the Intelligence Community’s Internal Doubts

The controversy over Russian collusion largely centers on the now-discredited Steele Dossier—a collection of unverified allegations compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Many of the claims in the dossier were used to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, and were later cited in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference.

However, newly released internal emails from 2019 reveal that not all intelligence analysts supported using the dossier in official reports. One redacted email shows an intelligence official expressing concern that critical information may have been intentionally omitted from drafts of the ICA.

“If the dossier material was used and I was excluded from it despite my clearance, that’s a serious issue,” the official wrote.

These revelations cast further doubt on the integrity of the original investigation and the way intelligence was compiled, shared, and ultimately presented to the public.

Legal Experts and Lawmakers Call for Accountability

The DOJ has yet to respond publicly to Ratcliffe’s referrals or Gabbard’s accusations, but calls for accountability are growing louder. Constitutional lawyers, lawmakers, and civil rights advocates have urged the Justice Department to review the evidence and determine whether laws were broken in the orchestration of the Russia probe.

Some point to potential violations of the Hatch Act, FISA abuse, and perjury before Congress, especially regarding statements made under oath by Brennan, Comey, and others.

Could Hillary Clinton Be Indicted?

While Ratcliffe stopped short of saying charges were imminent, he emphasized that the criminal justice system has no expiration date on truth. Whether or not Clinton or other Obama-era officials are ultimately prosecuted remains to be seen, but the continued release of declassified material may open the door for future legal action.

Clinton has not commented publicly on Ratcliffe’s statements. Similarly, former President Obama, Brennan, and Comey have remained silent following the most recent disclosures.

The Bigger Picture: Restoring Trust in U.S. Institutions

At the heart of the debate lies a much broader issue: the American people’s trust in their government. The Russia collusion story dominated headlines for years, influencing elections, policy decisions, and public discourse. The fact that major portions of the narrative have since been discredited has eroded public confidence in the intelligence community, the media, and political leadership.

“We need transparency, accountability, and above all, truth,” Ratcliffe said. “This goes beyond party lines—it’s about preserving the integrity of our democratic institutions.”

What Comes Next?

The future of this case could depend heavily on the Department of Justice’s willingness to pursue the referrals and examine the full scope of the evidence. As political tensions continue to run high ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, the reopening of this investigation could once again become a defining topic in American politics.

Moreover, with more intelligence documents scheduled for declassification in the coming months, this issue is unlikely to fade quietly.

Final Thoughts

The allegations by Ratcliffe and Gabbard represent a significant development in the long-running debate over the legitimacy of the Russia investigation. Whether these claims lead to real legal consequences or not, they underline the importance of transparency and accountability in government.

As more documents are released and investigations proceed, the public will be watching closely—demanding answers and, perhaps, justice.