By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A U.S. intelligence official has filed a highly classified whistleblower complaint alleging wrongdoing by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. This complaint has triggered a significant dispute over its disclosure to Congress, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of obstructing the process, while Gabbard’s office maintains they are working to resolve a complex situation. The classified nature of the complaint, with potential national security implications and involvement of other federal agencies and possibly the White House, has led to unprecedented delays in its handling and assessment.
Read the original article here
Tulsi Gabbard’s trajectory from a Democratic congresswoman to a figure frequently described with terms like “grifter,” “cultist,” and “Russian asset” has been a consistent point of contention and speculation for many. It seems that for a significant number of observers, the narrative surrounding her political actions and affiliations has solidified into a strong suspicion of self-serving motives and questionable allegiances, a perception that has only intensified over time.
There’s a persistent viewpoint that Gabbard’s association with the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), a group that reportedly broke away from the Krishnas and is described by some as a cult, casts a long shadow over her credibility. The idea of someone deeply involved in such a group potentially directing national intelligence is, to many, a deeply unsettling prospect, leading to questions about judgment and allegiances.
The question of why the Republican party hasn’t more vociferously questioned her actions is also a recurring theme. The underlying assumption here is that there’s a clear motivation for this lack of scrutiny: the GOP, in this view, is seen as intending to leverage her perceived foreign connections to their own advantage, viewing her as a strategic asset rather than an independent political actor.
This line of thinking is further fueled by allegations of wrongdoing in her capacity as Director of National Intelligence. A whistleblower complaint, reportedly highly classified, has led to a significant struggle over its dissemination to Congress, with accusations of stonewalling against Gabbard’s office. While her office maintains they are navigating complex circumstances, the perception of obstruction and a desire to avoid accountability is strong.
The comparisons to historical figures and events, such as the Rosenbergs, are not made lightly. They evoke a sense of national security concerns and potential betrayal, suggesting that the gravity of the accusations, whether implicit or explicit, is being taken very seriously by those who see her actions through this lens.
Her past criticisms of the Trump administration, particularly regarding Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen, are now often re-examined. While some saw these criticisms as genuine, others now view them as calculated moves to bolster her progressive bona fides at the time, particularly when coupled with her role in the Bernie Sanders Institute. This retrospective analysis suggests a pattern of strategic positioning rather than unwavering conviction.
The sentiment that “how far we’ve fallen” is a common refrain, often interpreted as a commentary on the perceived decline in political integrity and the rise of figures whose motives are increasingly opaque. The description of her as a “fancy way to say ‘Russian asset'” encapsulates a deep-seated suspicion about her true loyalties.
The commentary from individuals like Charles Pierce at Esquire is often cited as a source of unvarnished criticism. It’s this directness and refusal to shy away from controversial opinions that resonates with those who believe Gabbard’s actions warrant harsh scrutiny.
Hillary Clinton’s veiled criticism of Gabbard during a past election cycle is also frequently brought up. The interpretation is that Clinton saw through Gabbard’s political maneuvers, and Gabbard’s subsequent reactions are viewed as evidence of a defensive posture, an eagerness to lash out when her narrative is challenged.
The idea that “we” – meaning a segment of the public, particularly those on the left – were too quick to embrace Gabbard, dismissing concerns about her past actions and affiliations as mere attacks, is a significant point of reflection. The shift from praising her for challenging the establishment to recognizing potentially problematic behavior is seen as a failure to discern genuine political progress from calculated performance.
Bernie Sanders’ consistent campaign support for Gabbard, and his alleged defense against accusations of her being influenced by foreign powers, is a particular point of focus. The argument is that his endorsement provided her with a crucial platform and credibility that allowed her to further her agenda, whatever that agenda might truly be.
The frustration that these concerns often lead to fervent debate but rarely to tangible consequences is palpable. The question of “are we just going to write about it or is anything going to happen?” highlights a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that serious allegations are being discussed without resolution, which can feel like a deliberate act of provocation.
The characterization of Gabbard as embodying “cruella deville but with worse skin” is a vivid, albeit harsh, expression of disdain and a belief that her outward persona masks a more sinister intent. The principle that “when someone tells you who they are, believe them” is frequently invoked, suggesting that her actions and statements, when viewed collectively, paint a clear picture.
Her alignment with MAGA rhetoric is seen as a stark indicator of her willingness to shift her political stance for personal gain, a characteristic of a “grifter.” The idea that she would “agree she was [a grifter]” further emphasizes this perception of opportunistic political maneuvering.
The repeated labeling of her as a “Russian asset” or “Foreign (Russian) Agent” is central to the critique, suggesting that her actions are not merely opportunistic but actively detrimental to U.S. interests. This is often tied to the notion that she is an “employee” of foreign powers.
The sentiment that “this season of Traitors sucks” is a metaphor for the perceived lack of genuine political drama and the predictable nature of her alleged betrayals. The idea that “every Trump appointed person is a grifter” is a broader indictment, but Gabbard is often seen as fitting this mold, regardless of party affiliation.
The observation that there are few, if any, public expressions of regret from those who supported Gabbard, even among those who now regret voting for Trump, speaks to a perceived lack of self-awareness or a willful blindness among her past supporters. The term “spy” is often used as a more direct substitute for “asset,” highlighting the severity of the concerns.
The idea that numerous individuals are “kompromized by Putin” represents a significant anxiety about a widespread existential threat to the country, suggesting that Gabbard is part of a larger network of influence. The proposal for a one-time amnesty offer to reveal and confess foreign entanglements underscores the perceived depth of this problem.
The argument that her initial rise to prominence, particularly her role as a Bernie Sanders spokesperson in 2015/2016, was a deliberate attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton, points to a long-standing pattern of strategic political disruption. The question of “who is ‘we’?” suggests that the perception of her as a problematic figure has been present for a while, even if it wasn’t universally acknowledged.
The association with figures like Chris Butler and the ongoing speculation about his influence further solidify the “cult” narrative, suggesting that her actions are directed by outside forces with potentially nefarious agendas. The claim that “on their website, they have a page saying they are not a cult. If you have to come out and say it, you’re a cult” is a common, often humorous, observation used to dismiss such disclaimers.
Ultimately, the overarching sentiment is that Tulsi Gabbard’s political career is characterized by a consistent pattern of actions and associations that, to many, reveal a deeply opportunistic and potentially disloyal individual, a “grifter” in the truest sense of the word.