Cruz Compares Obama-Russia Meeting to Pearl Harbor: 'Will Live in Infamy'

Ted Cruz Compares Obama's 2016 Actions to Pearl Harbor

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has drawn a controversial parallel between the December 2016 meeting of former President Barack Obama with National Security Council officials and the attack on Pearl Harbor. He argued that this date will be remembered as a moment of infamy due to the alleged actions of the Democratic administration, which he claims undermined President Donald Trump’s election victory through Russian election interference.

"FDR famously said Dec. 7 is a date that will live in infamy," Cruz stated on Fox News's The Ingraham Angle. "Well, Dec. 9 should be a day that will live in infamy because this is a moment when senior members of our government decided to lie to the American people and to sabotage President Donald Trump who had just been elected by the American people."

Cruz's comments come in the wake of new evidence released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. According to her findings, the Obama administration may have undermined the start of Trump’s first term by publicly alleging that Russia helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

The intelligence community, in fact, concluded that Russia was "probably not trying ... to influence the election by using cyber means" in the months leading up to the election, based on the evidence provided by Gabbard's office. This conclusion contradicts the narrative that was later promoted by the administration.

James Clapper, then director of national intelligence, had prepared talking points stating, "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. Presidential election outcome." The statement was dated December 7, 2016, just days before Obama's White House held a National Security Council meeting to discuss Russia. Former Cabinet-level officials, including Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, were present at the meeting.

Following the meeting, the Obama administration reversed its earlier statements, ordering a new intelligence community assessment that claimed Russia had meddled in the election. They also leaked statements to the news media that supported this narrative. Gabbard's office described the Obama-era intelligence as "manufactured and politicized."

Gabbard has referred Obama to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution but has not specified any particular charges, including treason. She emphasized that there is irrefutable evidence showing that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence assessment they knew was false.

"There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew that was false," she stated during a White House press briefing. "The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact."

Trump's Response to the Claims

Trump has consistently dismissed the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election as a "hoax" perpetuated by Democrats. He has also accused his political opponents of fabricating issues surrounding the client list of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

"It was a hoax," Trump said in the Oval Office last week. "It’s all been a big hoax. It’s perpetrated by the Democrats, and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net. And so they try and do the Democrats’ work. The Democrats are good for nothing other than these hoaxes."

This ongoing debate highlights the deepening divisions over the integrity of the 2016 election and the role of the intelligence community in shaping public perception. As new evidence emerges, the conversation continues to evolve, with significant implications for both historical understanding and future political discourse.