By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of its ongoing commitment to providing factual reporting, The Independent details allegations that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard allegedly obstructed the distribution of National Security Agency evidence concerning a potential call between a Trump associate and a foreign intelligence operative. While Gabbard’s office vehemently denies these claims, a whistleblower asserts that intelligence officials have deliberately slowed the disclosure of their complaint. This situation highlights a significant conflict between those alleging obstruction for political purposes and Trump administration intelligence officials who maintain they have adhered to legal protocols.
Read the original article here
The revelation that the National Security Agency flagged evidence of a call between a Trump ally and a foreign intelligence actor, as disclosed by a whistleblower, has sparked significant concern and, for many, a sense of weary familiarity. This situation, in any other political climate, would undoubtedly be considered a monumental scandal, yet the widespread public reaction seems muted, leading to introspection on how such a grave development can be met with apparent indifference. It’s worth pondering how the actions of an adversarial foreign entity could be more flagrantly displayed than what appears to be unfolding. The seeds of this concern were arguably sown years ago, when political figures voiced complaints about government surveillance on their communications, often framing it as political targeting. In reality, these investigations were frequently aimed at known foreign intelligence operatives, with individuals who seemingly had no business being involved inadvertently or perhaps deliberately inserting themselves into the periphery of these sensitive matters. The specter of figures like Michael Flynn, whose own past entanglements with foreign actors are well-documented, looms large in the background of such revelations, suggesting a pattern of concerning connections.
The process by which this specific evidence was handled is particularly troubling. Reports suggest that after the NSA identified an unusual foreign intelligence call involving a Trump ally, the Director of National Intelligence reportedly took the information, bypassing standard protocols and relaying it directly to the Chief of Staff. The fact that Congress, the designated oversight body, only received a redacted version of this information after a significant delay of eight months raises serious questions about transparency and accountability. This suggests a departure from established procedures, where information is meticulously funneled through appropriate channels for review, and instead points towards a situation where established rules seem to have been disregarded, akin to a chaotic game of “telephone” where crucial details are lost or manipulated. The implications are stark: if an individual is indeed linked to foreign intelligence activities, and this information is deliberately obscured or delayed in its transmission to those responsible for national security oversight, it undermines the very foundations of democratic governance and national security.
The initial reaction to the notion of a “Russian asset” being involved is met with a cynical expectation that established institutions, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, will work to quash any investigation, while the White House press secretary will engage in a barrage of distractions and misinformation campaigns to divert public attention. The suggestion that this individual has been a “Russian asset for years” highlights a deep-seated concern about prolonged foreign influence operating unchecked within the highest echelons of power. In related news, the apparent sudden dismissal of a top data analyst tasked with monitoring phone records by the Trump administration, described as seemingly random, adds another layer of suspicion to the narrative, feeding the perception that the administration was actively dismantling or neutralizing elements that could expose compromising information. The lack of mainstream media coverage for such a significant development is also a point of contention, fueling a sense that certain stories are being deliberately suppressed or ignored.
The involvement of certain political figures, like Tulsi Gabbard, in what is being described as a complicit role, further complicates the picture. Her actions are characterized as aligning with a “dark side” and being driven by a desire for attention, leading to questions about her continued freedom to operate within the country. This sentiment is echoed by a general feeling of disillusionment, where even the possibility of accountability is met with resignation, suggesting that the expected response is simply a shrug. The commentary raises the question of whether the surveillance system itself was deliberately dismantled and those involved were removed after this report surfaced, implying a proactive effort to conceal the truth. The mention of historical responses to treason, such as those in the 1950s, underscores the severity of the perceived actions and the perceived lack of appropriate consequences in the present day. The sarcastic suggestion of a harmless call from the Kremlin to congratulate Melania Trump further illustrates the pervasive disbelief and cynicism surrounding the situation.
The observation that nothing will be prosecuted because “the criminals run the system now” is a powerful indictment of the perceived erosion of justice and accountability. The frustration is palpable, especially for those who recall the intense scrutiny placed on different political figures and their email communications, contrasting it sharply with the apparent lack of consequence in this case. The sentiment is that hypocrisy is rampant, and those who were loudest in demanding accountability for others are now silent or complicit. The “good luck for the midterms” comment carries a heavy implication of impending political fallout, suggesting that the public’s patience may be wearing thin. The acknowledgment that many people are “shrugging” at these complex issues is attributed to a lack of understanding and the difficulty of distilling these intricate matters into easily digestible narratives for the general public.
A detailed attempt to summarize the situation highlights the core concern: that an individual within the U.S. intelligence apparatus, potentially identified as Gabbard and her team, may have manipulated information to protect Donald Trump or his associates from political embarrassment or harm. The critical aspect is that the nature of this potentially damaging information remains unknown, but the alleged actions of suppressing or delaying its disclosure, particularly by failing to follow whistleblower laws and preventing timely Congressional review, are seen as a direct attempt to discourage whistleblowers and conceal potentially detrimental information. This situation is viewed as a deliberate move to shield individuals from scrutiny and prevent the public from accessing vital information. The broader problem, it is argued, is a systemic lack of confidence in Congress’s willingness or ability to act, even when presented with timely and credible information, rendering Congress largely irrelevant in the face of such alleged transgressions. The reference to Senator Wyden’s classified letter to a high-ranking intelligence official about concerns regarding CIA activities suggests that these worries are not isolated but are being raised at the highest levels. The assertion that Republicans in Congress are actively engaged in treason by protecting these individuals, and are therefore traitors themselves, reflects a deep division and a perception of complicity in undermining the nation.
The underlying motivation behind such alleged actions is framed within the context of Russia’s strategic goals: weakening NATO and destabilizing the United States, potentially to the point of its dissolution. A list is then presented, outlining various actions attributed to Trump that are seen as actively aiding these objectives. These include straining relationships with NATO allies, engaging in discriminatory funding practices against states with Democratic leadership, undermining confidence in the federal government through the withholding of disaster relief funds and the dismantling of social safety nets, weakening government institutions through executive orders and the loss of experienced personnel, and jeopardizing national security through actions related to public health initiatives like vaccinations. The withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the targeting of universities, the deployment of federal agents and the National Guard to blue states, and attempts to manipulate interest rates by potentially interfering with the Federal Reserve are all cited as further evidence of actions that contribute to the erosion of U.S. strength and global standing. The term “Manchurian Candidate” is invoked, suggesting a deeply compromised individual acting at the behest of foreign powers.
The commentary then returns to the case of Michael Flynn, highlighting his past actions, including his paid dinner with Putin, as a significant indicator of betrayal that should have led to severe consequences. The question is posed about whether individuals who have allegedly requested foreign interference in elections have equally shady connections, hinting at a broader pattern of foreign influence. The mention of a specific foreign country, starting with “I” and ending with “L,” suggests an allusion to Israel, adding another layer of complexity and accusation. The feeling of helplessness is expressed, with blame placed on Democrats for not allowing strong leaders to emerge, or for actively silencing those who do speak out, implying an intentional fragmentation that prevents a unified response. This lack of leadership is seen as a contributing factor to the widespread apathy. The inclusion of details about the creation of DODGE and the immediate granting of access to Russian accounts, which were initially flagged due to originating from Russian IP addresses, and the subsequent disabling of this security feature, are presented as damning evidence that the Russians are effectively controlling aspects of the U.S. government. A link to a Guardian article is provided, presumably offering further context for the concerns surrounding Tulsi Gabbard’s handling of intelligence intercepts. Finally, a theory is posited that a significant portion of the Democratic establishment is implicated in illegal or traitorous dealings, or at the very least, their major donors are. This perspective suggests that some within the Democratic party are not genuine allies but are rather “controlled opposition,” deserving of the same treatment as Republicans once the country has been “taken back.”