By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A whistleblower’s complaint against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard remains highly classified, preventing Congress from reviewing it despite ongoing behind-the-scenes wrangling and accusations of illegal delays by Gabbard herself. While an Intelligence Community Inspector General found the allegations not credible, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence denies wrongdoing and suggests the complaint is politically motivated. The situation has raised concerns about transparency and the potential for executive privilege to withhold information from legislative oversight.
Read the original article here
There’s a brewing storm surrounding Tulsi Gabbard, and it’s not a typical political squall. We’re talking about a classified whistleblower complaint that, according to officials familiar with the matter, could pose a “grave danger” to national security. The interesting, and frankly concerning, part is that this complaint, filed way back last May, has reportedly been met with resistance, with Gabbard herself accused of stonewalling efforts to get it to Congress.
This alleged stonewalling has certainly fueled a lot of speculation and concern. The idea that a complaint, now nearly nine months old, remains under wraps, with officials suggesting its disclosure could cause “grave damage,” raises a lot of red flags. It’s understandable why people are asking what exactly is being protected, and more importantly, who or what is being protected from scrutiny.
The persistent questions about Gabbard’s ties, some stretching back to her upbringing in a specific belief system, her past interactions with figures like Assad, and a perceived growing alignment with pro-Russian viewpoints, now cast a more ominous shadow given this whistleblower situation. These connections, often discussed in political circles, are now being viewed through the lens of potential national security threats, especially with the classified complaint looming.
Some are going as far as to label her a “walking national security nightmare” and even a “Russian asset,” suggesting that the administration she serves is riddled with individuals who are not acting in the best interests of the nation. The demand for transparency is palpable, with calls to release the whistleblower’s complaint in full so that any alleged wrongdoing can be brought to light and those involved can be identified.
The fact that the NSA might be allowing its own whistleblowers to be silenced, and for such an extended period, is deeply unsettling. It’s hard to reconcile the notion of a classified complaint that is supposedly so damaging with the widespread belief among some that Gabbard’s allegiance is already known to be with Putin. If the information is already widely suspected, then the secrecy surrounding the complaint only amplifies the distrust and concern.
Adding another layer to this complex situation are reports of Ukrainian intelligence potentially falling into Russian hands, with speculation that this classified complaint might be linked. This raises questions about the flow of sensitive information and whether individuals in key positions could be facilitating such leaks.
The narrative that Gabbard was specifically picked for her current role by Trump, similar to other appointments that have raised eyebrows, further fuels the suspicion for some. The idea that anyone not willing to disclose what they know should be prosecuted as a traitor highlights the intensity of the feelings surrounding this issue and the perceived stakes involved. The question of what kind of “grave danger” is being referenced is on everyone’s mind.
When considering the “grave danger” aspect, some are looking at other instances of alleged impropriety within the intelligence community, like NSA directors having to register as foreign agents or accusations of stealing from foreign governments. These examples seem to be used as benchmarks to gauge the severity of the current situation and the potential implications of the classified complaint.
The complaint also seems to touch upon Gabbard’s alleged actions regarding cybersecurity teams, which is seen by some as an immediate national security threat in itself. There are also whispers about foreign influence and potential financial entanglements with entities like the Greenland Mining Consortium, suggesting a web of potential foreign influence that could compromise national security.
The accusation of being both a Russian and Indian asset, with ties to leaders like Modi and Putin, paints a picture of an individual deeply enmeshed in international dealings that could be detrimental to US interests. The fear is that the entire Intelligence Community may be compromised, leading to damage that could eclipse historical intelligence failures.
The mention of other figures, like Jill Stein, who are perceived as politically disruptive during election cycles, is brought up as a comparison to highlight patterns of behavior that some believe serve foreign interests. The critical point remains that the whistleblower is in “grave danger,” and with the current leadership of various intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially implicated, the path to justice and transparency is perceived as perilous.
Hillary Clinton’s past warnings about Gabbard being “severely compromised by the Russians” are being recalled, adding historical context to the current concerns. The incident involving Gabbard’s presence at a voting facility in Georgia and a subsequent phone call with then-President Trump is also being scrutinized as potentially indicative of her actions and motivations.
Her role in overseeing intelligence agencies is seen as incompatible with on-site involvement in criminal investigations, particularly when it involves communication with the then-President during such an investigation. The perception is that Trump, who is also accused of being a Russian asset, appointed individuals who would serve his interests, which some believe are aligned with Russian foreign policy.
The sheer number of individuals in key positions who are perceived as compromised or acting against national interests fuels a sense of crisis. The concern is that this administration is composed of an “elite class and foreign agents” working to enrich themselves at the country’s expense, leading to a situation described as “fall of Rome levels of bad.”
The call for treason charges against Gabbard underscores the severity of the accusations and the belief that her actions are a direct betrayal of the nation. The question then becomes why this classified complaint isn’t being escalated to congressional inquiries, with some suggesting that certain members of Congress might be complicit or unwilling to act.
The imagery of “all the Avengers are Hydra” captures the widespread feeling that the entire system is compromised from within. The tactic of “flooding the zone” is seen as a way to distract and overwhelm, while the core issue of potential treason and foreign influence remains unaddressed.
Gabbard’s past statements and perceived praise for figures like Assad are being re-examined as evidence of a long-standing pattern of behavior that aligns with Russian propaganda. The damage to US intelligence is considered “irreversible” by some, and her selection for such a crucial role is viewed as a catastrophic mistake.
The idea that Gabbard has been “operating as Putin’s plenipotentiary for years” is presented as a logical explanation for a series of seemingly disparate events and political behaviors involving various figures and Russian foreign policy objectives. The connections drawn between Gabbard, Jill Stein, Michael Flynn, and Russian foreign policy initiatives, including events in Syria and the US intelligence community, suggest a broader pattern of foreign influence.
The mention of the Epstein files as a potential “receipt for the insurance policy of Russia’s investment in their own foreign policy” adds another layer of intrigue and suggests a deeper, more sinister connection to leverage and blackmail. The sentiment is that it’s “about time the skunk gets thrown into the spotlight and exposed as the treasonous weasel that she is.”
The skepticism surrounding claims of Gabbard not being part of a “particular cult” but potentially involved in “other religious/political cults” highlights a persistent distrust of her background and affiliations. The Rocky and Bullwinkle reference humorously underscores the perception of elaborate, perhaps even comical, schemes at play.
Finally, the speculation that the government might be deliberately exposing Gabbard to then use her as proof of foreign election interference, allowing them to nationalize elections, presents a chilling, albeit dramatic, potential endgame to this complex and concerning situation.