By John Q. Hosedrinker 
John Bolton criticized Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s report, which accused Barack Obama of a conspiracy to undermine Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory, calling her findings “exaggerated” and lacking substance. Gabbard’s report alleges the use of false information and “politicized intelligence,” aiming to subvert Trump’s win, a claim that Democrats, including Obama, dismissed as a distraction. This controversy arose amidst a media focus on the Epstein files, prompting Trump to disavow the situation, even suggesting it was a hoax orchestrated by Democrats.
Read the original article here
John Bolton slams Tulsi Gabbard over ‘treasonous’ Obama report: ‘She’s imagined evidence that doesn’t exist.’ Here’s the deal: it seems like we’re living in a world turned upside down. Who would have thought we’d be nodding in agreement with *John Bolton*? But here we are. The former National Security Advisor, a man known for his hawkish foreign policy views, is taking aim at Tulsi Gabbard, and the core of his argument boils down to this: she’s making stuff up. He accuses her of creating, or “imagining,” evidence to support her claims against former President Obama. And, frankly, based on what’s being discussed, it sounds like he might be right.
The crux of the issue here is the nature of Gabbard’s accusations, which seem to revolve around some kind of alleged wrongdoing by Obama. But as Bolton points out, the problem isn’t just the accusations themselves; it’s the lack of any verifiable evidence. He’s basically saying that she’s pulling these claims out of thin air, which, if true, is a pretty serious accusation. Given his history, it’s a bit jarring to hear Bolton taking this position, especially given his own controversial past and the accusations he’s faced. But, here we are, in a situation where his assessment seems, from the snippets of comments we have, to ring true.
Now, the interesting part of all this is the broader context. Many are highlighting the irony of Bolton being the voice of reason in this particular situation. There’s a strong sense that this is all a distraction, a way to muddy the waters and deflect from other, potentially more damaging, issues. Some suggest that the focus on Obama is a tactic to protect someone else – perhaps Trump. It’s the classic political maneuver: create a diversion, sling some mud, and hope the real story gets lost in the shuffle.
Another thread that runs through the discussion is the role of Russia. There’s the assertion that Gabbard is, or at least has been, acting as a Russian asset. The implication is that her actions are not just misguided, but are intentionally designed to undermine American interests, potentially furthering Russia’s agenda. Whether that’s true or not is another story, but the mere suggestion adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It certainly raises some serious questions about her motivations and allegiances, but this is what the general sentiment suggests.
The commentary reflects a broader cynicism about the current state of politics. There’s a general feeling that facts don’t matter, and that everyone is just trying to play the game, regardless of the truth. The use of words like “propaganda” and “fabrication” underscores this sentiment. It also suggests that there’s an underlying anger, too. It’s an anger at what’s perceived as the erosion of truth and the manipulation of public opinion.
One common theme here is the feeling that this is all a bit bizarre. The fact that we’re in a situation where people are turning to someone like John Bolton to make sense of things tells you something about the chaotic and polarized nature of the current political climate. Even people who don’t agree with Bolton’s views on foreign policy seem to be acknowledging his assessment of the Gabbard situation. It’s a testament to the strange times we live in.
The discussions further imply that it could be a deliberate move on Gabbard’s part, to try and recapture favour. She seems to be trying to cozy up to the right-wing elite, and maybe regain a place in their good books. The suggestion that it’s all about money, and that she’s willing to say anything to stay relevant and employed is a common accusation in these types of debates.
Ultimately, the core of the criticism against Gabbard, as expressed by Bolton, seems to be that she’s peddling misinformation. It’s a classic case of “he said, she said,” but the problem is the accusations are serious, yet baseless. Given the current political climate, this story is, unfortunately, not that surprising.
One thing seems clear: whatever the ultimate truth of the situation, it’s another example of the strange and often unsettling nature of today’s political landscape. And in a world of rapidly changing alliances and shifting allegiances, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to know who to trust, what to believe, and where this all might lead.