Newly declassified intelligence documents have reignited controversy over the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, suggesting Hillary Clinton authorized a plan to link Donald Trump with Russian election interference, as the New York Post reports.

The plan intended to shift attention from Clinton's own email scandal, aiming to politically damage Trump's candidacy.

On Thursday, a set of memos and emails from the Obama administration surfaced, shedding light on the plan's origins.

They reveal exchanges involving the Democratic National Committee and Open Society Foundations with claims that Clinton's campaign sought to falsely tie Trump to Russian activities.

Julianne Smith, then-foreign policy adviser for Clinton's campaign, was identified as leading this strategy.

Key players, allegations revealed

Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations knew of the strategy, and his July 25, 2016, email highlights intentions to demonize both President Putin of Russia and Trump. This narrative was positioned as a potential distraction from the controversy surrounding Clinton's missing emails.

According to these communications, media dissemination tactics included collaborations with entities like Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect.

Documents from John Durham’s subsequent investigation confirmed the intelligence files' legitimacy but noted that certain Open Society emails couldn’t be precisely verified or authenticated.

The Obama administration is alleged to have pressured the FBI to manage the Clinton email server investigation differently. This influence is documented in memos citing involvement from the CIA and FBI during that period.

Obama-era intelligence interference

A December 2016 intelligence assessment delved into Russian election activities, echoing concerns about documents like the Steele dossier. Andrew McCabe, in March of 2016, reportedly shared campaign-related documents with the Department of Justice.

Durham described the emails in question as possibly containing content acquired through Russian hacking. Such revelations have fueled demands for transparency and accountability from both current and former officials.

However, Open Society Foundations strongly rejected any claims of orchestrating an FBI investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. A spokesperson described the accusation as a "malicious falsehood" rooted in Russian disinformation and politically driven attacks.

Public reactions pour in

The response from various public figures echoes the sentiment for transparency. Attorney General Pam Bondi, reflecting on the Department of Justice's role, emphasized its commitment to truth and transparency. Efforts to hold the government accountable for past actions continue to be supported by the current administration.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley criticized the Obama FBI, alleging they inadequately reviewed intelligence reports suggesting a fabricated Trump-Russia narrative for political advantage. These reports were tied to documents like the Steele Dossier, thought by some to be a tool for political gain.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe commented on the files, suggesting a coordinated attempt to damage Trump's presidency. Such views fuel the broader debate about political motivations behind intelligence activities during the election.

Open Society Foundations deny role

The Open Society Foundations continue to counter the accusations, emphasizing their nonpartisan nature and lack of involvement in political campaigns. A representative stated the Durham report found no wrongdoing by their staff, criticizing the allegations as part of an effort to distract from real scandals.

FBI Director Kash Patel has expressed the need for complete transparency regarding the Russia collusion allegations, underscoring the importance of exposing political abuses of the justice system.

As documents tied to the Durham report become public, the question of political accountability remains in the spotlight. Calls for clarity highlight the intense political battles that defined the 2016 election season.