The news articles from various liberal and conservative sources provide differing perspectives on the claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard regarding the alleged actions of the Obama administration related to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and the subsequent investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. Here's a comparison and contrast of the articles:

Agreements Across Articles:

1. Claims by Tulsi Gabbard: All articles agree that Tulsi Gabbard, as the Director of National Intelligence, made claims against the Obama administration, suggesting a conspiracy to undermine Trump in 2016 by allegedly manufacturing intelligence. 2. Bipartisan Agreement on Russian Interference: Both the liberal and conservative articles acknowledge the conclusions of bipartisan committees and intelligence community assessments that confirmed Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump, although conservative sources focus more on alleged misconduct in compiling these assessments.

3. No Evidence of Vote Manipulation: There is a consensus across the articles that while Russia tried to influence the election, evidence did not exist of changed vote outcomes.

4. John Brennan and James Comey Investigations: Both sides mention the investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, although the tone and emphasis differ.

Disagreements Across Articles:

1. Motivation and Legitimacy of Gabbard’s Claims:
Liberal Articles (CNN, NBC, NYT): These articles imply Gabbard's actions are politically motivated and lack credibility, with accusations of trying to rewrite history or distract from other pressing political issues.
Conservative Articles (Fox News, NewsMax, TheBlaze): They support Gabbard's claims, suggesting there is substantial evidence of misconduct by the Obama administration and describe them as long-awaited revelations.

2. Perceived Threat to Intelligence Operations:
Liberal Articles: There's concern that declassifying certain documents could harm intelligence operations or expose sensitive sources, undermining national security.
Conservative Articles: They tend to downplay these risks, focusing more on the need for transparency and accountability.

3. Characterization of the Alleged Conspiracy:
Liberal Articles: They depict Gabbard’s assertions as baseless conspiracy theories and emphasize the lack of new evidence to support them.
Conservative Articles: These characterize the actions of Obama administration officials as a treasonous conspiracy, endorsing the notion that Obama and his team orchestrated a plot against Trump.

Reality Likely Between the Biases:

1. Historical Context and Political Motivation: Gabbard's claims likely have some political undertones, especially given the polarized climate and the timing aligned with potential political advantage for Trump. Criticism from both camps suggests elements of political motivation in how both sides are addressing her actions.

2. Established Investigative Findings: The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings and Robert Mueller's investigation remain valid and undisputed in their claims of Russian interference without clear evidence of illegal collusion on Trump’s part.

3. Legal and Investigative Actions: The investigations into figures like Brennan and Comey are real, but the outcomes and significant findings of malfeasance are not conclusive. The deployment of a DOJ "strike force" reflects the seriousness with which current authorities regard these claims, although it does not guarantee substantiated claims.

The discourse illustrates how sensitive and polarized intelligence and political matters remain in U.S. domestic politics. Assertions by political figures, declassifications, and investigations can ignite significant debate and allow for different interpretations based on existing political biases.