Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a Russian operative.

Hillary was right about everything.

Of course she and Kamala were, they had briefings they could actually remember.

We are so screwed as a country right now, just because some people hate brown and black people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a Russian operative.

Hillary was right about everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true and is one of the most disgusting cases of clickbait I have ever seen.

There was absolutely NO wrongdoing by DNI Gabbard, a fact that @WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era Intelligence Community Inspector General came to this conclusion, determining that the Whistleblower’s allegations against DNI Gabbard “did not appear credible.”

This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce "security guidance" for transmittal to Congress.

Even so, and contrary to the Wall Street Journal's false reporting, there was no delay in producing the "security guidance" from DNI Gabbard, AND the Whistleblower's complaint is with the Congressional Intelligence Committees for review.

Director Gabbard has always and will continue to support Whistleblower's and their right, under the law, to submit complaints to Congress, even if they are completely baseless like this one.

This is a nothingburger story, written like a salacious gossip column. The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed that they published this trash.

Yes comrade!! I too, as big American football lover of beer beverage, think she no guilty!!

Much hero! Is only libural that hate!

Anonymous wrote:She is a Russian operative.

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true and is one of the most disgusting cases of clickbait I have ever seen.

There was absolutely NO wrongdoing by DNI Gabbard, a fact that @WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era Intelligence Community Inspector General came to this conclusion, determining that the Whistleblower’s allegations against DNI Gabbard “did not appear credible.”

This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce "security guidance" for transmittal to Congress.

Even so, and contrary to the Wall Street Journal's false reporting, there was no delay in producing the "security guidance" from DNI Gabbard, AND the Whistleblower's complaint is with the Congressional Intelligence Committees for review.

Director Gabbard has always and will continue to support Whistleblower's and their right, under the law, to submit complaints to Congress, even if they are completely baseless like this one.

This is a nothingburger story, written like a salacious gossip column. The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed that they published this trash.

Anonymous wrote:If its a nothingburger why is it under lock and key, why all the refusals to cooperate and show transparency with Congress?

Hint: it's not a nothingburger.

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true and is one of the most disgusting cases of clickbait I have ever seen.

There was absolutely NO wrongdoing by DNI Gabbard, a fact that @WSJ conveniently buried 13 paragraphs down. Even the Biden-era Intelligence Community Inspector General came to this conclusion, determining that the Whistleblower’s allegations against DNI Gabbard “did not appear credible.”

This is a classic case of a politically motivated individual weaponizing their position in the Intelligence Community, submitting a baseless complaint and then burying it in highly classified information to create 1) false intrigue, 2) a manufactured narrative, and 3) conditions which make it substantially more difficult to produce "security guidance" for transmittal to Congress.

Even so, and contrary to the Wall Street Journal's false reporting, there was no delay in producing the "security guidance" from DNI Gabbard, AND the Whistleblower's complaint is with the Congressional Intelligence Committees for review.

Director Gabbard has always and will continue to support Whistleblower's and their right, under the law, to submit complaints to Congress, even if they are completely baseless like this one.

This is a nothingburger story, written like a salacious gossip column. The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed that they published this trash.

Anonymous wrote:The next administration is going to be very busy dealing with how compromised the IC community has become under Trump. So many traitors in the Republican Party today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of silly to focus on the safe. Obviously everything in the DNI is going to be called national security sensitive. It's the standard way the government covers up internal corruption.

The point is that the complaint was filed in May of last year and 8 months later the administration is still stonewalling and trying to decide how to handle the case and whether or not Congress should even be allowed to see information about the case. While whistleblower cases no doubt have occurred before involving the national intelligence agencies, it's the amount of time that has passed without dealing with the case that is unprecedented. And the comment about the safe suggests that whatever is in the complaint is a BFD and potentially hugely explosive.

"The lengthy delay on sending the complaint to Congress is without known precedent, according to watchdog experts and former intelligence officials. The inspector general is generally required to assess whether the complaint is credible within two weeks of receiving it, and share it with lawmakers within another week if it determines it is credible."

why does the administration get to decide?!

Anonymous wrote:We should probably be paying more attention to what Tulsi Gabbard is up to.