By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former CIA officer Susan Miller refuted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s claims that the Obama administration manufactured intelligence to undermine Donald Trump’s 2016 election win. Miller, who helped assemble the 2019 Mueller report, emphasized that their investigation was solely focused on the data, with no external influence dictating their conclusions. The team concluded with high probability that the Russians aimed to get Trump elected, while acknowledging they could not determine the effectiveness of these efforts. Miller strongly criticized Gabbard’s assertions, maintaining that the intelligence findings were accurate and not politically motivated.
Read the original article here
Gabbard Is Lying About Obama and Russian Intel: Top CIA Officer – well, isn’t this a familiar tune? The consensus is pretty clear: the accusations against Tulsi Gabbard seem to be met with a resounding “of course, she is.” The sentiment expressed is one of almost weary resignation, as though the act of dishonesty in this context is as predictable as the sunrise. It’s a sentiment that suggests a deep-seated distrust of political figures, a feeling that lying has become normalized, even expected.
The core of the issue, as understood here, seems to revolve around allegations that Gabbard is spreading misinformation regarding Obama and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The implication, which comes across as a very strong one, is that she’s actively trying to protect someone – that her motivations aren’t based on truth or principle, but on some sort of ulterior motive, possibly even political gain or personal allegiance. The accusations of her being a “Russian asset” are serious, and suggest that her actions are driven by external influences rather than her own judgment or the best interests of the country.
The discussion then quickly shifts to the broader context, the idea that this behavior isn’t isolated. The comments imply that the “entire US government” is operating a “personal pedophile protection racket.” This paints a disturbing picture of corruption and moral decay, where protecting powerful individuals, regardless of their alleged crimes, is more important than upholding justice or the law. The implication is that this goes beyond mere lying; it suggests a systemic problem where truth and justice are actively suppressed.
The language used is incredibly strong, filled with accusations of treason and descriptions of individuals as “traitors” and “scum.” This aggressive tone reflects a profound level of anger and disillusionment. There’s a palpable sense of betrayal, as if the very foundations of trust in government have been eroded, if not obliterated. The sheer repetition of the word “lying” makes it seem to underline the very essence of the supposed matter.
The focus extends beyond just the accusations; there’s a definite implication of what’s motivating Gabbard. Several comments suggest she’s seeking to curry favor, to stay in the good graces of a particular group or individual. This casts her actions not as those of a public servant but as those of someone acting in their own self-interest. It feeds into the narrative that the political landscape has become a place of transactional relationships, where morality and truth are sacrificed for power and influence.
The mention of the Epstein case and the allegations surrounding it is key. It suggests a possible explanation for Gabbard’s alleged actions – that she’s participating in a cover-up to protect powerful figures implicated in the Epstein scandal. This introduces a whole new dimension to the accusations, painting a picture of collusion and corruption at the highest levels. It underscores the perception of a system where the powerful are above the law.
The comments also reflect a growing sense of cynicism and hopelessness. The consistent use of phrases like “No shit, Sherlock” and “Of course she’s lying” suggests a belief that the truth is readily available, yet it is actively being denied. This leads to the conclusion that the system itself is corrupt, and attempts to expose the truth will be met with resistance and deflection.
The tone throughout is incredibly disheartening, filled with phrases like “exhausted with all this.” The repeated reference to the “dear leader,” and the consistent attacks on Republicans imply that this perceived corruption transcends political boundaries. It suggests a belief that the entire political system is broken, and those who hold power are more interested in protecting themselves than in serving the public.
In conclusion, the overarching sentiment from these comments is one of profound distrust, disillusionment, and anger. Gabbard’s alleged dishonesty is not viewed as an isolated incident but as part of a larger pattern of corruption, collusion, and moral decay within the US government. The focus shifts to not only exposing the lies but, in its wake, an exploration of the motivations behind them. This has created a distrust, where the people are left with the feeling of no one to trust, and no place to turn to.