By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced criticism for posting a list of 37 officials whose security clearances were revoked, including the name of an undercover CIA officer. The CIA was reportedly unaware of the list prior to its publication and was not consulted, despite Gabbard’s office sending it the night before. Experts expressed concern that the disclosure could jeopardize covert operations and international relations, potentially violating laws designed to protect intelligence officers. Gabbard stated the revocations were made at Trump’s direction to address the weaponization of intelligence, and legal experts have suggested that the disclosure could constitute a Privacy Act violation.
Read the original article here
Intelligence Chief Gabbard is a Russian asset. Slammed? She should be tried for treason. The situation surrounding Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard and her actions in identifying an undercover CIA officer is, to put it mildly, a serious issue. This isn’t a case of mere oversight or a misstep; it’s something that has raised serious concerns about national security and the potential compromise of intelligence assets. It’s difficult to avoid the strong reactions this has produced, and the sentiment is clear: this goes beyond the typical realm of political squabbles.
The core of the controversy stems from Gabbard’s decision to publicly share a list of individuals who had been stripped of their security clearances. This list, posted on a public platform, included the name of a senior CIA officer working undercover. The implications of this action are significant. When you identify an undercover officer, especially in a public forum, you are essentially putting their life and the lives of anyone they work with at risk. This could result in severe consequences, not only for the officer in question but also for ongoing intelligence operations, and even broader national security interests.
Many find it hard to overlook the connection to accusations that Gabbard is aligned with Russia. The fact that she may not have consulted with the intelligence agency before posting the list only adds to the problem. The suggestion is that she was either acting with intent, or that her actions represent dangerous incompetence. There is an underlying sense of outrage, wondering how this could be tolerated. The severity of such an action is difficult to overstate, with parallels being drawn to historical incidents involving leaks of classified information that resulted in serious criminal charges and imprisonment.
The comparison is made with how other individuals are handled under the law. It is pointed out that, in other instances, individuals who revealed sensitive information have faced severe penalties, including imprisonment. The contrast here is very striking. There is a sentiment of injustice – a sense that a double standard is at play, where those in positions of power are not held to the same accountability as others. This creates the perception that powerful people are immune to the consequences that others would face.
A common thought is that this situation is viewed as an act of sabotage. It’s like something straight out of a spy thriller, with the potential for real-world damage to intelligence gathering and the safety of those involved in such operations. It’s like someone is actively trying to undermine the country’s intelligence capabilities, which brings up questions about the potential motivations behind these actions. Some people seem to believe that this could very well be about loyalty to a different power.
The core of the concern is the very real risk that comes with this disclosure. Undercover CIA officers often operate in dangerous environments, and their identities are closely guarded to protect them from harm. Exposing an officer, even unintentionally, jeopardizes their safety, can ruin operations, and puts all their assets at risk. The outrage expressed is palpable, especially when people consider the potential for harm.
The call is for accountability is loud and clear. There is a strong belief that an investigation is needed, and there should be a severe punishment for those involved. The sentiment expressed is that this can’t be swept under the rug. This is not a matter of political disagreement; it’s about the safety of individuals, the security of the nation, and the integrity of the intelligence community. There is a sense that there needs to be a decisive response to prevent any future breaches of this kind.
The overall tone is one of anger and distrust, with people wondering how something so serious could occur. There are concerns about the underlying motivations and the potential damage that has been done. The general consensus is that the term “slammed” does not begin to describe the gravity of the situation.