By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Deadline White House, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi expressed serious concerns regarding Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence. Their discussion with Nicolle Wallace centered on the implications for U.S. national security and international alliances. The analysts highlighted alarming new questions surrounding Gabbard’s suitability for the critical role. This discussion took place on November 19, 2024.
Read the original article here
Reports suggest Russia and Vladimir Putin are reportedly overjoyed at Donald Trump’s reported choice of Tulsi Gabbard for the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The sheer audacity of this potential appointment is almost breathtaking.
This reported selection sends shockwaves through those concerned about national security. The potential for a significant compromise of sensitive intelligence is incredibly high, raising serious questions about the integrity of the intelligence community itself.
The implications are staggering. Gabbard’s past appearances on Russian state television and reported meeting with Putin raise alarming questions about her loyalties and potential susceptibility to influence. Granting her access to the nation’s most classified secrets would be a monumental gamble, potentially handing over the keys to the kingdom to a foreign power.
The perceived lack of rigorous vetting procedures only exacerbates these concerns. Reports that Trump is barring the FBI from conducting standard background checks on his nominees further fuels the suspicion that this choice is deliberate, a calculated move rather than an oversight.
The potential consequences are far-reaching. This reported decision threatens to irrevocably damage America’s intelligence gathering capabilities and its standing on the world stage. It could give Russia unprecedented access to critical information and allow them to operate with impunity.
Many speculate that this scenario is part of a larger, calculated strategy. The suggestion that Gabbard’s shift from Democrat to Republican was strategically planned to facilitate this appointment, further amplifies concerns regarding the depth of potential collusion.
This event is not simply about one individual or one appointment. It’s about the erosion of trust in the American political system, and the potential for foreign interference to drastically impact national security. The implications ripple far beyond the DNI position.
This development is viewed by many as a grave threat to American democracy. The potential for a major breach in national security is overwhelming. There is a palpable sense of helplessness and urgency as some grapple with the seemingly insurmountable challenge of preventing this potential catastrophe.
The concern isn’t merely hypothetical. There is widespread belief that this move, if indeed carried out, would represent a significant victory for Russian intelligence. The potential implications, ranging from compromised operations to leaked state secrets, are simply too substantial to ignore.
While some might argue this is simply partisan hyperbole, the weight of the evidence presented, the gravity of the potential consequences, and the concerning lack of transparency make it difficult to dismiss such serious allegations.
The implications extend beyond the immediate concerns of national security. The act itself seems to symbolize a profound shift in the American political landscape, one in which loyalty to the nation is potentially superseded by other priorities.
The reported glee in Russia underscores the potential ramifications of this choice. It is hard to imagine a scenario that would be more beneficial to Russian interests, and this suggests a level of intentional compromise that is deeply troubling.
This event has ignited a significant debate about the ongoing threat of foreign interference in American politics, and the effectiveness of the measures in place to counter it. The fact that this possibility is even being discussed highlights systemic vulnerabilities.
The alleged lack of checks and balances further exacerbates the situation. The potential for undue influence to override standard protocols is a matter of deep concern, as is the perceived lack of accountability.
The situation is undeniably serious. It’s not simply a matter of political maneuvering; it’s a potential national security crisis that demands immediate and thorough consideration. The implications are far-reaching, with potential consequences spanning intelligence gathering, foreign policy, and the very integrity of American democracy itself.