Gabbard Accuses Obama of Treason; Media Yawns

(What did you THINK they were going to do… actually report?)

By now I’ll assume you guys y’all know that on Friday, Director of National Intelligence and possible part-time Wonder Woman impersonator Tulsi Gabbard announced she’s handing over documents that don’t suggest a treasonous conspiracy by Obama-era officials (including Barack himself) to take down Trump before he ever took office… they prove it. According to the bombshell data dump, the whole Russian interference thing was less “intelligence” and more “fan fiction.”

Gabbard’s not making vague accusations; she published the receipts. And she’s not just calling for an investigation—she’s demanding indictments.

Curious to see how the MSM would try to spin this, I might have sprained something sprinting to log into The New York Times. If “omg you won’t believe what those insufferable conservatives are trying to pull now,” had a vibe, it would be their opening paragraph:

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Friday issued the latest in a series of reports from the Trump administration attempting to undermine the eight-year-old assessment that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said the information she was releasing showed a ‘treasonous conspiracy in 2016’ by top Obama administration officials to harm Mr. Trump.”

See, the Gray Lady is weary. No, she’s downright sick of this sh*t. “This is just the latest in a [neverending] series of [ridiculous] reports from the [godforsaken] Trump administration attempting to undermine [again!] the eight-year-old [practically carved into the earth’s mantle] assessment that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 [did we fabricate an entire dossier of fake crap to prove it for nothing?].”

For eight whole years we’ve “known” this. (Sure, people thought the earth was the center of the universe for centuries and believed bloodletting was a medical cure-all for millennia, but eight years!) Why won’t that darned Trump administration just let it go already?

*This reminds me of British comedian Eddie Izzard’s hilarious schtick about coming to America and taking our historical tours and cracking up when the tour director whispers reverently, “And this building here has been here for fifty years!” It’s practically a lifetime.

Could be worse TBH.

A few things to note: The Times didn’t deny the documents were real. They didn’t refute the claims with evidence. They just patted their obedient little readers on the head and said, “There’s nothing to see here, sweeties.” And dadgummit if ninety-nine-point-nine-nine percent of them won’t buy it on the spot.

The Guardian basically called the drop a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from the Epstein debacle before painting Gabbard as a walking, talking Moscow Barbie.

In their words:

“The attempt to return the spotlight back to the Russia investigation—long derided by Trump as a “hoax”—comes as the US president finds himself in the maelstrom of the lingering scandal over the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on sex-trafficking charges.”

Me: And this is relevant how?
The Guardian: Look! Over there! Squirrel!

“Gabbard’s nomination as national intelligence director was one of Trump’s most contentious,” The Guardian had to add. “It drew criticism because of her lack of previous intelligence experience, having never even served on a congressional committee on the subject, and a track record of supportive comments about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points on the war with Ukraine.

According to The Guardian, anyone who has ever had a single sip of vodka or once hummed along to Tchaikovsky should be considered a Russian sympathizer.

Forbes, predictably, played the exact same card (“With Trump Under Scrutiny Over Epstein, Tulsi Gabbard Calls For Prosecution Of Obama-Era Officials”), while over at Politico, the strategy was not dissimilar—ignore the documents, mock the messenger, and repeat “the Trump administration has repeatedly targeted critics of the president” until the audience goes glassy-eyed.

CNN’s very brief coverage felt like it had been written by ChatGPT on Xanax. “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution… in the latest example of officials going after perceived enemies of President Donald Trump,” they wrote (note threatened, latest example, perceived enemies). You could practically hear the reporter [cough cough] sighing through the copy: “Here we go again, peasants, questioning your betters.” They also reminded us, just in case we’d forgotten, of the “bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report that supported the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.” Yes, I’m sure Santa personally vetted that report—right after double-checking his list of naughty Republicans.

What the media doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge is that according to the declassified data and corroborating reports from Devin Nunes, then-chair of the House Intelligence Committee, every legitimate assessment before the 2016 election concluded that Russia did not have the intent—or even the capability—to interfere meaningfully. There was no evidence of collusion, and no attempt to alter the outcome. Then suddenly, after a December security meeting, Obama directed intelligence officials to produce a report not exploring if Moscow influenced the election—but detailing how it did. (In other words, “Find it! What do you mean, you can’t find it? Well then, make it up!”) That pivot became the shaky foundation for the years-long Russia-collusion narrative.

Not a single outlet addressed the memos directly, of course. The Guardian thinks you should look over there, Politico wants you to blame Trump harder, and the Times is so bored it can barely be bothered to sneer. I mean, why go to the trouble of trying to disprove something when you can just roll your eyes until it goes away?

No one denies the documents exist. No one disproves a word of them. But they all agree: it’s manufactured chaos, right-wing deflection, and how dare anyone suggest that the all-knowing, ever-noble Obama might’ve been up to something other than Hope, Change™, and benevolent intelligence gathering of his political enemies.

Gabbard’s not just dropping documents; she’s naming names: Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Kerry—basically everyone who ever used “existential threat to democracy” unironically on cable news. Her office claims the Steele dossier—yes, the one commissioned and cobbled together by Hillary Clinton—was the flimsy “evidence” used to dupe America into the Russia-collusion hysteria, long after intelligence agency experts had deemed it largely unsubstantiated, at the very most generous best.

“[Obama et al’s] goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people,” Gabbard said.

“No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it.”

Gabbard called the implications of her doc drop “nothing short of historical,” and she’s not wrong. She insists this wasn’t just politicized spin—it was deliberate fabrication; a premeditated attempt to delegitimize Trump’s win. She’s promised that she’s handed over the proof to the Department of Justice and FBI for a criminal referral—and that the paper trail is still unrolling.

Literally what I picture.

The next round will reportedly include internal communications from intelligence officials expressing concern about being pressured into changing their assessments, plus drafts of the infamous ICA (intelligence community assessment) showing how the wording evolved under White House direction. In other words, exactly how the narrative sausage got stuffed.

“There must be indictments,” Gabbard told FOX News’ Maria Bartiromo. “Those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time, no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people, they all must be held accountable."

Every president tries to polish their legacy—but never before has one been this thoroughly, publicly, damningly caught rewriting his presidential Wikipedia page in real time. If Gabbard’s right—and so far, no one’s proved she isn’t—we might be watching one of the most explosive political scandals in American history. And the media? They’re out there yelling, “Don’t listen to her! She owns a nesting doll and once clicked ‘like’ on a Tolstoy quote!”

Believe me, I know what folks are saying—and it ranges from “told ‘ya it was gonna happen” to “good Lord, would you please stop waiting for this administration to save you?” Tell me your take in the comments.

P.S. I was thinking of y’all—literally and figuratively—this weekend as I read all the comments responding to my tiny “you guys“ footnote in my last post. I thought every once in a while I would throw in some random controversial term in my circle and see what my people think. Today’s word: sneakers. As in the broad category of athletic shoes. I grew up on the East Coast, and that’s what you called them. Your Vans, your Keds, your Nikes, your Adidas… they were all sneakers. When I moved to California, I was mocked mercilessly for this and told that the generic term was “tennis shoes.” I would (and did and always will) argue that basketball shoes are not tennis shoes, and neither are Chuck Taylors or Golden Geese. So… say your neighbor pops by and asks you if you want to go for a walk. You say, “sure! Let me just put on my [your term for footwear].” Tell me how you fill in the blank!