Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said accusations made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about the Obama administration are "a lie."

"Now what Tulsi is doing—it’s a little sleight of hand, but it’s worth focusing on. She is saying that the intelligence community early on said that the Russians could not use cyber tools to mess with the voting infrastructure, the machines that tally our votes," he said. "That was true then, and it is true now."

"What is horrifying about this whole lie out of Gabbard is, number one, it puts people at risk. And right now, you know, the mouth-breathers on MAGA online are just going out of their minds based on a lie."

"Don’t take it from this Democrat—four, five, six weeks from now, let’s see if this administration—Tulsi Gabbard accusing a former president of treason—let’s see if they bring charges," he said. They won’t."

MARGARET BRENNAN: A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation found that the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election was correct. They deemed it to be so on a bipartisan basis.

I’m saying that because today and yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has said that she is referring for prosecution former American officials she accused of a “treasonous conspiracy”—a years-long coup against President Trump—because they assessed that Russia had tried to influence the election.

This is weeks after the CIA director issued a report critiquing the tradecraft that went into that 2016 assessment. Is there any legal basis for any kind of prosecution here?

REP. JIM HIMES: None. Absolutely none, Margaret.

What you saw from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was not just a lie, but a very dangerous lie. Because when you start throwing around language like “sedition” and “treason,” somebody’s going to get hurt.

Now, you pointed out that the Senate Committee—then led by Marco Rubio, a Republican and now Secretary of State—found unanimously that Russia meddled in the election to try to assist Donald Trump.

John Durham, special counsel appointed by Donald Trump, investigated this and found that what the Senate report said was correct.

Now what Tulsi is doing—it’s a little sleight of hand, but it’s worth focusing on. She is saying that the intelligence community early on said that the Russians could not use cyber tools to mess with the voting infrastructure, the machines that tally our votes.

And that was true then, and it is true now. Though the Russians tried to break into a couple of states’ election technical infrastructure, they didn’t do it.

But it is well known and well established that the Russians hacked into the DNC and undertook any number of other influence operations—including buying reams of Facebook ads to discredit Hillary Clinton. That is not in contention, right?

And what is horrifying about this whole lie out of Gabbard is, number one, it puts people at risk. And right now, you know, the mouth-breathers on MAGA online are just going out of their minds based on a lie.

And number two, the intelligence community is full of very, very good people who do their jobs every single day. And now they’re watching their leader do something that each and every one of them knows is dishonest.

And it is a really, really bad thing for the safety and security of the American people when that dynamic is out there.

BRENNAN: That Senate report is online. The findings are there. But I understand your distinction—and it's an important one—between influence versus physical hacking.

HIMES: By the way, Margaret, if I may—you asked about the referral. Here's the test.

This is Epstein all over again: criminal referrals, “we're going to prosecute Barack Obama,” “treasonous,” and “seditious.”

Here’s the thing—and I hope that four, five, six weeks from now—don’t take it from this Democrat—four, five, six weeks from now, let’s see if this administration—Tulsi Gabbard accusing a former president of treason—let’s see if they bring charges.

They won’t. They won’t, because there’s not a judge in the land, not a single judge, who will treat this with anything other than laughter that will be heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific in this country.

So the test of this is: four, five, six weeks from now, is the DOJ bringing charges?

And the answer to that is no.

And now we’re going to be in Epstein world, where we’re like, “Wait a minute. Treason is conspiracy by a former president? Why isn’t the Department of Justice bringing charges?”

And the answer to that question is: it is a lie.